dent, for instance in relation to any pending proceedings at national level, or of any criminal activity or conduct (see also Alekseyenko v. Russia, No. 74266/01, § 88, 8 January 2009).
109. It follows from the above considerations that the provisions of Russian law failed to afford a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence.
110. Moreover, it should be noted that it transpires from the available material that in late 2009 the prison administration treated Ms Misakyan as an "advocate". However, the correspondence was still subject to monitoring (see paragraph 31 above).
111. The Court has developed quite stringent standards as regards the confidentiality of prisoners' legal correspondence. In Petrov v. Bulgaria (No. 15197/02, § 43, 22 May 2008) the Court enunciated its principles as regards legal correspondence in the prison context as follows:
"...correspondence with lawyers... is in principle privileged under Article 8 of the Convention and its routine scrutiny is not in keeping with the principles of confidentiality and professional privilege attaching to relations between a lawyer and his client... The prison authorities may open a letter from a lawyer to a prisoner solely when they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure which the normal means of detection have failed to disclose. The letter should, however, only be opened and should not be read. Suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided, such as opening the letter in the presence of the prisoner. The reading of a prisoner's mail to and from a lawyer, on the other hand, should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances when the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the privilege is being abused in that the contents of the letter endanger prison security or the safety of others or are otherwise of a criminal nature. What may be regarded as "reasonable cause" will depend on all the circumstances but it presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the privileged channel of communication is being abused..."
112. The Court considers in that connection that, as a rule, correspondence between an actual or prospective applicant and his or her representative before the Court should be privileged (see also references to the relevant Council of Europe documents in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, and Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 49 and 50, Series A No. 233).
113. The Court has found in a number of cases concerning the right of application under Article 34 of the Convention that measures limiting the applicant's contacts with his representative may constitute interference with the exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition (see, for example, Shtukaturov v. Russia, No. 44009/05, § 140, 27 March 2008, and Zakharkin v. Russia, No. 1555/04, §§ 157 - 160, 10 June 2010). The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or perversion of the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, No. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
114. Having become aware in late 2009 that Ms Misakyan was an advocate and/or represented the applicant in contentious proceedings before the Court, the prison administration should have specified which documentary proof, if any, was required or sufficient for obtaining the privileged status for the subsequent correspondence between the applicant and Ms Misakyan.
115. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the inspection of the correspondence between the applicant and Ms Misa
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
