Communicated on 13 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos 14784/09 and 51742/11 Yuriy Petrovich MAKHLYAGIN against Russia and Aleksandr Mikhaylovich BELYAYEV against Russia lodged on 18 September 2008 and 21 June 2011 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Mr Yuriy Petrovich Makhlyagin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Krasnoturyinsk . He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Obukhov , a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Tagil .

The applicant in the second case, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Belyayev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and is detained in prison no. 10 in the Tver Region.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Mr Makhlyagin

(a) Proceedings before the Court

In 2003 the applicant lodged an application before the Court. This application ended up on 1 October 2009 with an inadmissibility decision (see Makhlyagin v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 39537/03, 1 October 2009).

In the meantime, in September 2008 the applicant lodged the present application. His first letter of 18 September 2008 was accompanied with a cover letter from the chief officer of Nizhniy Tagil prison no. 5, summarising the contexts of the letter.

His letter of 8 May 2009 concerned both applications before the Court and bore an inscription made by a prison officer (registration date: 12/5/9 and registration number: M-358). The letter was accompanied with a cover letter.

The same applies in respect of his letter dated 30 October 2009.

(b) Domestic proceedings

In 2008 the applicant lodged several complaints, alleging that the prison staff impeded his correspondence with the Court, in relation to the applications pending before it.

On 26 November 2008 the Prison Inspectorate for the Ural Region replied that the applicant had handed over his letters to the prison staff “since there had been no envelopes available in the prison”. As to the incoming letters, the Inspectorate stated that the applicable domestic regulations only prohibited the opening, inspection and photocopying of the detainee ’ s letters to the Court; that no such prohibition was prescribed in relation to incoming letters from the Court.

The applicant sought judicial review of the prison staff ’ s actions vis-à-vis his correspondence. He also challenged the staff ’ s opening and inspection of his correspondence with his representative before the Court in case no. 39537/03.

By judgment of 22 January 2009, the Tagilstroyevskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil rejected his claims.

The applicant drafted a statement of appeal and submitted it to the prison staff for dispatch, as required by the domestic regulations. On 30 January 2009 the prisons staff dispatched the appeal to the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.

On 4 March 2009 the regional court returned his appeal, stating that it was to be lodged through the first-instance court and that the applicant could ask for restoration of the appeal time-limit for a valid reason, if any.

The applicant submitted his appeal to the district court, asking it “to restore the case in the list of cases”.

In April 2009 the district court refused to process the appeal as belated. The applicant drafted a statement of appeal against this refusal. For unspecified reason, this statement of appeal was dispatched directly to the regional court. So, the latter (again) explained to him that appeals were to be lodged through the first-instance court. The applicant did not follow up.

2. Mr Belyayev

On 2 November 2010 the applicant received a letter from the Court in relation to his previous application before the Court.

The letter was opened by the prison staff of Tver remand centre no. 69/1.

The applicant brought civil proceedings for compensation, claiming that this correspondence was privileged and thus could not be opened by the prison staff.

On 22 March 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tver rejected his claim.

On 7 June 2011 the Tver Regional Court upheld the judgment. The court stated that Russian law did not prohibit the opening of incoming correspondence from the Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 20 of the 1995 Custody Act provided that the detainees ’ correspondence was to be processed through the services of the detention facility and was subject to inspection by its staff. Section 21 provided at the material time that motions, requests and complaints to a court or to the European Court of Human Rights were not subject to such inspection and were to be dispatched to the addressee in a sealed envelope.

Article 91 § 2 of the Code of Execution of Sentences, as amended on 8 December 2003, provided at the material time that detainees ’ outgoing and incoming correspondence was subject to monitoring by the prison authorities. It also provided that correspondence with courts, prosecutors, prison officials, the Ombudsman, the public monitoring board and with the European Court was not subject to monitoring. Correspondence between a convict and counsel (or another authorised representative) was not subject to monitoring, except when the administration had good reasons to believe that it was aimed at criminal ends. In that event the correspondence was monitored on the basis of a reasoned decision by the prison governor or his deputy.

Under the 2001 Internal Prison Regulations, as amended in 2004, all detainees ’ correspondence was to be processed by the prison authorities. Correspondence was to be placed in mailboxes or handed to staff unsealed (Chapter 12). On 3 November 2005 new Regulations were adopted. Rule 50 provides that detainees must put their unsealed letters into mailboxes or give them to prison staff, except for correspondence which is not subject to monitoring.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain about the opening and inspection of the correspondence between them and the Court. They argue that the domestic authorities, including the courts, misinterpreted the domestic laws and regulations as not prohibiting the inspection of the Court ’ s letters to the detainees.

Mr Makhlyagin also complains about the photocopying of such correspondence by the prison staff, as well as about the prison authorities ’ failure to ensure a possibility to obtain envelopes and postage stamps in the detention facility. Lastly, he complains about the allegedly unjustified restriction of his right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As to the Court ’ s correspondence to the detained applicants , was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the manner in which the authorities dealt with it? Did the applicable Russian law prohibit the opening, inspection and photocopying of the Court ’ s letters to detainees ? Did the Russian law contain a proper regulatory framework, ensuring the sufficient level of confidentiality of the Court ’ s correspondence to the detained applicants?

2. In addition, as to Mr Makhlyagin :

(a) As to his correspondence to the Court , were there violations of Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention on account of the unavailability of envelopes and postage stamps in the prison, the (risk of) reading and inspection of such correspondence by the prison staff?

(b) Were the opening, inspection and photocopying of Mr Makhlyagin ’ s correspondence with his representative before the Court lawful? Did it pursue any legitimate aim? Was it proportionate under Article 8 of the Convention (see Boris Popov v. Russia , no. 23284/04 , §§ 97-115, 28 October 2010)?

(c) Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicant ’ s access to the appeal court in relation to the judgment of 22 January 2009?