ČIAPAS v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani
1. The applicant, Mr Rolandas Čiapas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility. 2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant was detained on remand in Šiauliai Remand Prison periodically on an unspecified date in August 2013, from 18 October 2013 to 21 October 2013, from 25 October 2013 to 17 December 2013, from 19 December 2013 to 7 May 2014, from 8 September 2014 to 11 September 2014, from 3 November 2014 to 10 November 2014, and from 14 November 2014 to 18 November 2014. He was transferred to Vilnius Correctional Facility on 20 June 2014 after his conviction. 5. The applicant was married to E.Č. but got divorced on 4 June 2013. On 18 December 2014 he married V.A. 6. On 1 August 2013, 7 August 2013, 14 February 2014 and 17 February2014 he wrote to Šiauliai Remand Prison administration to request conjugal visits from his former spouse but was informed that under domestic law pre-trial detainees had no right to such visits. 7. The applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice on 30 July 2013, the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice on 20 August 2013, 30 September 2013 and 15 February 2014 and to the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights on 16 February 2014, complaining about his inability to receive conjugal visits from his former spouse. He received similar responses, namely that the provisions of domestic law did not guarantee pre-trial detainees a right to conjugal visits. On 10 September 2013 he also complained to the Chief Administrative Disputes Commission (“the Commission”) about the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to grant him conjugal visits. His complaint was dismissed on 23 September 2013. 8. It appears that the applicant called E.Č. at least eighty times from 30 May 2013 to 3 December 2013. It also appears that when the applicant was detained in Panevėžys police station, E.Č. visited him on 22 May 2013, 5 June 2013, 5 July 2013, 17 July 2013, 29 July 2013 and 30 September 2013. 9. At the material time, Article 18 § 2 of the Law on Administrative Disputes Commissions provided that parties to proceedings could appeal against Commission decisions to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court within twenty days of their receipt. A similar provision was set down in Article 32 § 1 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings. 10. At the material time, Article 22 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention (Kardomojo kalinimo įstatymas) provided that remand detainees could have an unlimited number of visits from relatives and other people. Visits could not exceed two hours. 11. As of 1 January 2017, Article 22 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention provides that visits to remand detainees by spouses, cohabitants or the other parent of a mutual child can take place without the presence of a representative of the remand prison. Such visits can take place once a month, in specially equipped premises and can last up to one day. An explanatory report of 22 April 2015, attached to the draft amendments of the Law on Pre-Trial Detention, stated that the Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) judgment had obliged Lithuania to make sure it did not discriminate against remand detainees (as compared with convicted inmates) and to provide them with the possibility to receive conjugal visits from spouses (partners). 12. At the material time, Point 65 of the Internal Regulations of Remand Prisons (Tardymo izoliatorių vidaus tvarkos taisyklės) provided that physical contact was not allowed during visits to remand detainees. 13. At the material time, Articles 73-75, 79-80 and Article 94 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences (Bausmių vykdymo kodeksas) provided that a convicted person being held under the standard prison regime had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to forty-eight hours, including conjugal visits, every three months. Those being held under a light regime had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to forty-eight hours, including conjugal visits, every two months, while convicted inmates being held under a disciplinary regime were not allowed any visits. Similarly, convicted inmates aged under 18 in the ordinary regime had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to fortyeight hours, including conjugal visits, every two months. Convicted inmates under 18 being held under a light regime had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to forty-eight hours, including conjugal visits, every month. 14. Articles 73-75 and 79-80 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences were amended on 1 April 2016 while Article 94 was amended on 1 January 2017. They now provide that convicted inmates being held under the standard regime can have short-term visits of up to three hours and longterm visits of up to one day, including conjugal visits, every two months. Light regime convicted inmates have the right to two shortterm visits of up to three hours and two long-term visits of up to one day, including conjugal visits, every two months. Convicted inmates assigned to a disciplinary regime have the right to a short-term visit of up to three hours every four months. Similarly, convicted inmates under 18 being held under the standard regime can have two short-term visits of up to three hours and one long-term visit of up to one day, including conjugal visits, every month. Under-eighteens under a light regime have the right to four short-term visits of up to three hours and one long-term visit of up to one day, including conjugal visits, every month. 15. Article 3.66 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that a marriage is dissolved from the date of issue of the court decision. 16. In a case unrelated to the applicant, the Supreme Administrative Court relied on the Court’s interpretation in the case of Varnas, cited above, and acknowledged that the refusal on the basis of domestic law to grant conjugal visits to pre-trial detainees was not objective and reasonable grounds to treat pre-trial detainees and convicted inmates differently. As a result, the Supreme Administrative Court awarded the applicant in that case compensation of 1,000 euros (EUR) (decision of 8 September 2016, no. A850-662/2016).