ers received by the applicant from the Court, in reality he had received seventeen letters from it. He further submitted that two of the Court's letters had colony stamps disclosing that the correspondence had been routinely opened and inspected. His letters to and from the domestic authorities which should not have been censored by virtue of Article 91 of the Penal Code had also been stamped. There had been a month's delay in handing one of the Court's letters over to him; there were persistent delays in posting his letters to various authorities.
53. As regards the opening of the Court's letter, the applicant maintained that, for some unspecified reasons, it had been brought to the censorship unit and that Kh. had passed it to a co-inmate instead of handing it over directly to him. Furthermore, while the letter had been received on 25 May 2005, it had been handed over to the applicant only a day later, there had been no explanation for that delay and several enclosures were missing from the envelope. From the statements of Z. and Kh. it was obvious that they had examined the contents of the envelope and thus the Government's argument about their negligence did not stand. The breach of his rights had never been remedied at the domestic level. The authorities had carried out a proper inquiry only after the Court had given notice of the application to the Government. Nobody had been punished for the breach of his rights and no adequate redress had been provided. On the contrary, he had been put in PKT for his attempt to find out what had happened to the documents.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
54. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], No. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). In this connection the Court accepts the Government's argument that the breach of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence had been, at least in substance, acknowledged by the domestic authorities and in the proceedings before it (see paragraphs 26, 30 and 51 above). As to the issue of redress, the Court does not exclude that in a situation like the one in the present case adequate redress would not necessarily imply monetary compensation but might take other forms, the adequacy of such redress being assessed with regard to the particular circumstances of each case. However, in the present case the Court finds nothing to suggest that there was any decision or measure on the part of the domestic authorities which could be regarded as adequate redress for the alleged breach of the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention. In this connection the Court takes note of the applicant's submission, uncontested by the Government, that a proper inquiry had only been initiated after the Court had given notice of the applicant's complaints, that no measures had been taken in respect of the officials identified during the inquiry as responsible for the opening of the Court's letter and that no one had apologised to the applicant.
55. In view of the foregoing the Court concludes that the applicant has not lost victim status in relation to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It further notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded and not inadmissible on any other grounds and should be declared admissible.
2. Merits
56. The Court reiterates that "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the right to respect for his correspondence will contravene Artic
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 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
