THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KALDA v. ESTONIA
(Application no. 35245/19)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
1 March 2022
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kalda v. Estonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 35245/19) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 June 2019 by an Estonian national, Mr Romeo Kalda, born in 1974 and detained in Viru Prison (“the applicant”), who had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by Mr J. Valdma, a lawyer practising in Tallinn;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Estonian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, Representative of Estonia to the European Court of Human Rights;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. Although the Viru Prison management granted requests by the applicant to have short-term meetings with his wife, it dismissed specific requests for such meetings to be held without a glass partition separating them. As grounds for refusing to grant a meeting without a glass partition, the prison initially referred to a statutory obligation arising from section 31(2) of the Internal Prison Rules (vangla sisekorraeeskiri) to use such a partition, but later cited prison security requirements. It noted that the applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment and had repeatedly committed offences against the person (including while in prison). Moreover, an internal prison risk assessment report had noted a risk of his escaping and a “loss of trust” (usalduse kaotus) as security risks, and the applicant was generally considered highly dangerous. The Tartu Administrative Court dismissed an appeal against the prison’s decision, finding that the Internal Prison Rules did not enable the prison management to exercise discretion when deciding on the applicant’s requests to meet his wife without a glass partition. The Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment and noted additionally that the applicant had not substantiated how the use of a glass partition had violated his rights. It added, referring to the prison’s risk assessment report, that the restriction at issue had in any event been justified, given the danger that the applicant posed. The Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. 2. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal to allow him to have short-term meetings with his wife without a glass partition, noting that he had been allowed to have long-term meetings with his wife without such a physical barrier.

Outcome for Article 8: violation