Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Борис Попов (Boris Popov) против России» [англ.]

present case. The Court has concluded that there was a violation of Article 5 § 1 in that the applicant's arrest and detention were not "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and did not afford sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness.
86. By failing to apply the above standards, the national courts did not enforce the applicant's right to compensation (see, by comparison, Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 38, Series A No. 185-A, and Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium, No. 22945/07, §§ 45 - 47, 17 March 2009).
87. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

IV. Alleged violations concerning censorship
of correspondence

88. The applicant complained that his correspondence had been inspected by the prison staff. The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see {Valasinas} v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, No. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, No. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
89. Article 8 reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for... his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

A. The parties' submissions

90. The applicant complained about the inspection of correspondence from the Court by the staff of the detention facilities from 2004 onwards; the inspection and photocopying of his letters to the Court; the insertion of copies of them into his detainee's file; and their dispatch accompanied by notes summarising the letters' contents. The applicant also complained about the inspection of his correspondence with his representative before the Court, Ms Misakyan.
91. The Government submitted that the applicant's correspondence with the Court had not been monitored. The inspection of his correspondence sent to the address of the International Protection Centre had been lawful under Article 91 of the Code of Execution of Sentences. The prison authorities had not been provided with a copy of the authority form allowing Ms Misakyan to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the Court or a document confirming that she was an "advocate", as required by Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

92. The Court observes that the Government did not plead that the applicant had been required to make use of any domestic remedies in relation to his grievances. By virtue of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction in relation to any acts or omissions on the part of the prison authorities that occurred no earlier than six months before the date(s) when the relevant complaints were first raised before the Court.
93. As to his letters to the Court, the applicant did not argue that the grievance disclosed any "continuing situation" affecting the application of the six-month rule. Nor did he specify when he had first become aware of the monitoring of his letters before their dispatch to the Court. The Court observes that in any event the alleged interference mostly concerns the years 2007 and 2008 (see paragraph 25 above), whereas the complaint was not lodged until 28 August 2009 (see paragraph 24 above). There is not a sufficient factual basis for considering that any letters were inspected in 2009. In view of the above, it has not

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 17 18 19