CASE OF PAKHTUSOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant is a taxi driver. 6. On the night of 25 July 2009 traffic police stopped the applicant’s car. Following the applicant’s failure to produce his driving licence and suspecting that it had been withdrawn, police officers took him to the duty unit of the Ezhvinskiy District police station, where he was kept in a cell for administrative detainees until the following morning. A record of the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up. 7. On 26 July 2009 the Justice of the Peace of the Vezhdinskiy Court Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District found the applicant guilty of driving a vehicle after the withdrawal of his driving licence (an administrative offence under Article 12.7 § 2 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences) and sentenced him to fifteen days of administrative detention. 8. On 31 July 2009 the applicant made a written request to the head of the detention unit seeking a family visit. The next day the request was returned to the applicant bearing a handwritten note by the acting head of the detention unit, Mr S., which stated that family visits were not “provided for [by law]”. 9. On 14 August 2009 the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the Syktyvkar Town Court, alleging that the applicant’s right to family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention had been unlawfully restricted. 10. The police officials filed a written objection, arguing that the Internal Rules governing Detention Facilities for Administrative Detainees did not provide administrative detainees with the right to have a family visit. 11. On 15 September 2009 the Syktyvkar City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, having accepted the police authorities’ argument that administrative detainees were not entitled to a family visit under the domestic law in force and that the applicant had been subjected to those limitations of his rights as a negative consequence of the administrative detention. 12. The applicant’s representative appealed. Relying on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000X) and Vlasov v. Russia (no. 78146/01, § 123, 12 June 2008), he argued that the authorities’ assistance in maintaining contact with close family was an essential part of a detainee’s right to respect for family life. Limitations imposed on the number of family visits constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Restrictions of that kind could only be applied “in accordance with the law”, should pursue one or more legitimate aims and, in addition, should be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”. The representative submitted that there was no norm in Russian law imposing restrictions on family visits for administrative detainees. 13. On 22 October 2009 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the City Court’s decision, having reasoned as follows: “There is no prohibition on family visits for administrative detainees. ... [At the same time] a refusal to authorise a family visit has a basis in Russian law; however, it should be warranted by circumstances and conditions providing the competent authorities with the right to apply the disputed restriction. Providing lawenforcement bodies with unlimited powers in issues pertaining to fundamental rights could run contrary to the superior role of the law and could result in arbitrary interference with human rights. In the case under examination, there are no grounds for concluding that the actions of the acting head [of the detention unit of the police station where the applicant had been detained] were unlawful because, having applied for a family visit, [the applicant] had not indicated whom he had wanted to see and what the relationship was between him and that person. If those important details are not provided, the authorisation of a family visit cannot be considered lawful.”