the functioning of the postal service. However, the total number of lost letters is too high to be viewed merely as errors of the postal service and accordingly the Court is of the view that the loss of a significant portion of its correspondence with the applicant was attributable to the relevant prison authorities. There has therefore been an interference with the applicant's right to correspondence guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention by the respective prison administrations.
82. Having regard to the applicable domestic law, the Court finds that the failure to deliver its letters was not based on any domestic legal provision. Without going any further, the Court concludes that such failure was unlawful and constituted a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
2. Alleged censorship of the applicant's
correspondence with the Court
83. The Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicant's grievances about the censorship of his correspondence in two distinct periods: before 16 December 2003, which is the date of entry into force of Law No. 161-FZ of 8 December 2003, and thereafter.
(a) The alleged censorship between 22 January 2001 and 16 December 2003
84. The Court notes that the Government have acknowledged that until the entry into force of Law No. 161-FZ of 8 December 2003 the prison authority had censored the applicant's correspondence with the Court. In particular, it was admitted that at least three letters written by the applicant, dated 7 September 2001, 20 August 2002 and 14 January 2003 respectively, had been censored.
85. In view of the fact that during that period the censorship of inmates' correspondence was provided for in the legislation and any complaints to the prison authority's hierarchical superiors and the courts would be incapable of providing the applicant with relief, the Court rejects the Government's preliminary objection in this respect.
86. The Court further notes that this measure constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence. The Court will next examine whether it was in compliance with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention, namely, whether it was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to that aim.
87. The Court takes note of Article 91 (2) of the Code of Execution of Sentences of 8 January 1997, then in force, which provided for censorship of prisoners' correspondence and is thus prepared to accept that the interference in question was lawful.
88. As to whether this measure pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate, the Court notes that the Government have failed to submit any intelligible explanation for the need for the prison authorities to open and read the letters that inmates are sending and receiving from law-enforcement bodies, especially if these bodies are courts. The Court would stress that in the absence of any concrete, specific and persuasive explanation such control cannot be regarded as pursuing a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society (see Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 82 - 84, ECHR 2001-III, and Klyakhin v. Russia, No. 46082/99, § 109, 30 November 2004).
89. Accordingly, the Court finds that the censorship of the applicant's correspondence with the Court between 22 January 2001 and 16 December 2003 was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
(b) The alleged censorship between 16 December 2003 and 4 September 2007
90. As to the alleged censorship in the period between 16 December 2003 and 4 September 2007, the Court would note that Law No. 161-FZ of 8 December 2003 (in force as of 16 December 2003) stated clearly that a prisoner had a right to correspond with the Court without cen
> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27 ... 28
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
