Published on 24 July 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 49257/22 Vladimir NIKITIN against Estonia lodged on 6 October 2022 communicated on 4 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is sentenced for life and is serving his sentence in the Viru Prison. His compliant concerns a number of short-terms visits in prison between 2018 and 2020 during which the applicant was separated from his wife and his step-son by a glass partition and could talk to her/them only over an intercom phone.

The applicant’s claim for damages, lodged in 2021, was dismissed by the Tartu Administrative Court and subsequently by the Tartu Court of Appeal. The Tartu Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had never complained about the set-up of the visits and had never requested the visits to be organised in a room without such partition. He had thus failed to use a preliminary remedy (esialgne õiguskaitsevahend) – namely the claim to oblige the administrative body to either adopt an administrative decision or to take administrative measures (kohustamiskaebus) – which had been a prerequisite for lodging a claim for damages. However, the Tartu Court of Appeal admitted that the aforementioned remedy might not have been effective in preventing the interference on each specific occasion. It further considered that in the light of the applicant’s own passiveness in addressing the matter it was not credible that the presence of the glass partition had caused him such intense suffering as he had claimed. Other means of staying in contact with his family members had further alleviated his situation. Thus, even presuming that the use of glass partition had been unlawful (õigusvastane), awarding monetary compensation would in any event have not been warranted. Finally, the Tartu Court of Appeal noted that it did not consider the use of glass partition unlawful, referring, inter alia, to the general dangerousness of the applicant. On 7 June 2022 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, §§ 28-34, 18 December 2018; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018; Trosin v. Ukraine , no. 39758/05, §§ 42-43 and 46, 23 February 2012; and, in the same vein, Kalda v. Estonia [Committee], no. 35245/19, §§ 5-8, 1 March 2022)?

2. The Government are asked to specify whether at the relevant time there were rooms in the Viru Prison, designated for short-term meetings, which did not have the glass partition. The Government are also asked to specify whether and under which conditions has the applicant been able to meet family members for long-term meetings.