CASE OF MAKHLYAGIN AND BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)
Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra
4. The applicants, Mr Makhlyagin and Mr Belyayev, were born in 1983 and 1979 respectively and were held in different detention facilities. The facilities’ officials opened and/or inspected letters that the applicants exchanged with the Court. 5. From September 2008 until October 2009 the applicant, detained in a correctional colony, lodged several letters with the Court. All of them were accompanied by cover letters from a chief officer of the colony summarising the content of the applicant’s letters. Some letters also bore the colony’s registration stamps. 6. The applicant lodged a claim, alleging that the colony’s staff had impeded his correspondence with the Court. On 22 January 2009 the Tagilstroyevskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil dismissed his claim 7. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court. On 4 March 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court rejected his appeal, stating that it should be lodged through the first-instance court. The regional court also noted that the applicant could request that the time-limit in respect of the appeal be re-set. 8. On 30 March 2009 the applicant lodged his appeal with the firstinstance court. Instead of requesting that the time-limit in respect of his appeal be re-set the applicant asked the court to restore his case to the list of pending cases. On 9 April 2009 the District Court refused to examine the appeal as belated. 9. The applicant appealed against this decision. However, he once again lodged his appeal with the Regional Court instead of the first-instance court. His appeal statement did not contain a request for the missed timelimit to be re-set. The Sverdlovskiy Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 10. On 2 November 2010 the applicant received a letter from the Court; the letter was opened by a member of the remand prison staff. 11. The applicant lodged a claim for compensation. By a final decision of 7 June 2011 the Tver Regional Court dismissed his claim. The court stated that Russian law did not prohibit the opening of incoming correspondence from the Court.