le 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV).
(a) Existence of an interference
57. The Court reiterates that the opening of one letter is sufficient to disclose an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence (see Narinen v. Finland, No. 45027/98, § 32, 1 June 2004).
58. The Court observes, and it was not disputed by the parties, that on 25 May 2005 colony official Z. had unsealed the Court's letter to the applicant dated 10 May 2005. In their explanations Z. and Kh. explicitly stated that they had taken the documents out of the envelope and had "examined" or "inspected" them (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above). In this connection the Government's argument that Z. and Kh. were unable to read the enclosures in English is without relevance for the Court. It is further not disputed by the parties that Z. had been the first to open the envelope and examine its contents, that Kh. had subsequently also examined them and had passed them on to V. before it had reached the applicant a day later, some documents being missing. In this connection it is to be noted that several days after the incident the applicant had written to the Court and put it on notice that he had received an opened envelope and that several documents were missing (see paragraph 21 above). In the ensuing correspondence and his observations he consistently confirmed his description of the events.
59. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the censorship of the letter amounted to an "interference" by a public authority, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence.
(b) Whether the interference was "in accordance with the law"
60. The Court notes that Article 91 § 2 of the Penal Code, as in force at the material time, expressly prohibited censoring of detainees' correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights. It takes into account that the Government acknowledged that the interference with the applicant's correspondence had been in breach of Article 8. It follows that censoring of the above letter was not "in accordance with the law".
61. There has therefore been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 34 of the Convention
62. The applicant also complained that on 19 May 2005 wardens had forced him to write a statement to the effect that he had no complaints about the conditions of his detention. He did not refer to any Convention provision. The Court will examine the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention which provides as follows:
Article 34
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
A. Submissions by the parties
63. The Government stated that the applicant had not been subjected to any pressure because no statement, as described by him, had been received by the Court or the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court. Furthermore, in his statement of 25 October 2005 the applicant himself submitted that no one in colony LIU-2 had told him that he should withdraw his application to the Court. He had also stated that he had not been subjected to direct pressure in that colony. Moreover, the applicant was able to write and send to the Court a letter describin
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 ... 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
