The detained prisoner can not be deprived of contacts with his relatives nor ftom practicing his religious worship.
DECISION
Moroz v. Ukraine 2-3-2017 (no. 5187/07)
SUMMARY
Family life. Right to correspondence. Religious freedom.
The inability during the detention of the applicant to communicate with his relatives and to correspond with them constitutes a breach of family life and the right of correspondence of the prisoner. The ECtHR also ruled that there was also a violation of religious freedom because during his temporary detention he was not allowed to meet a priest or visit the prison chapel and all his religious books and articles were seized by prison staff.
COMMENT
In accordance with Article 8 of the ECHR, the provisional prisoner has the right to communicate with his relatives and to correspond with them. Also, Article 9 of the ECHR gives him the right to meet with the priest of his religion, to visit the existing chapel in prisons and to have his religious books with him.
PROVISIONS
Article 8
Article 9
Article 6 par. 1
Article 6 par. 3c
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Oleg Moroz, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and is currently serving his prison sentence. The case concerned his prosecution for murder, in addition to the conditions and treatment he had been subjected to whilst in pre-trial detention.
On the morning of 1 June 2005 O., the president of the Ukrainian Dental Association, was shot in his office. Mr Moroz had been present at the time, and called an ambulance. When the police arrived, Mr Moroz explained that it had been an accident: that he and O. had both been interested in hunting; that he had brought the gun as a present for O.; and that the gun had accidentally gone off when O. had tried to pull it to himself.
Mr Moroz was arrested by police, and questioned later that night in the presence of his lawyer. The lawyer indicated to the police that Mr Moroz had to be provided with the opportunity to talk with him in private before the questioning. However, the investigator rejected the request. Mr Moroz was later charged with murder, and then also with the illegal production, possession and storage of firearms. Starting in July 2005, he was detained at Kyiv pre-trial detention centre no.13 (“the SIZO”).
In May 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal found Mr Moroz guilty as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The Court held that Mr Moroz had deliberately shot O. twice in the head, as revenge for O.’s role in preventing him from becoming the acting executive director of the Ukrainian Dental Association. The court’s conclusion was based on witness testimony (including that of three people who had entered the room after the incident, and found Mr Moroz smiling), as well as a forensic examination (which included a ballistic examination that contradicted Mr Moroz’s version of events). Mr Moroz appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the decision in November 2006.
On 1 July 2007 Mr Moroz was transferred to prison no.72 to serve his sentence.
Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Moroz complained that the proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he complained that he had not been allowed to have a private discussion with his lawyer in the police station before his police interview there; and that he had also been denied a lawyer when first questioned about the shooting at the scene. Relying on Article 8 (right to family life and the correspondence), Mr Moroz complained that whilst in pre-trial detention, he had not been allowed to see his family or send correspondence to them. He also relied on Article 9 (freedom of religion) to complain that during his pre-trial detention he had not been allowed to meet with a priest or visit the SIZO chapel, and that his religious literature and other religious items had been seized by SIZO staff.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 9
Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
