71537/17

THIRD SECTION CASE OF BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 71537/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 February 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bikbulatov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,  Mateja Đurović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 September 2017. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mrs V. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW Jurisdiction 6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.  The applicant complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35‑57, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with law”. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The applicant also submitted a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29‑33, 18 February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and taking into account the previous awards made by the Court to the applicant (compare Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and of Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complaint about the restrictions on family visits in detention; Holds that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Detention facility Type of restriction Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law 71537/17 12/09/2017 Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV   Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna Moscow SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits partner; restriction on family visits in the period from 14 June 2016 and until at least 16 March 2018 Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of family visits in detention