CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 26 September 2012 and 8 February 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3627/07 Andrey Mikhaylovich SOKOVNIN against Russia lodged on 10 November 2006     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Were there violations of Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention on account of the opening and inspection of the Court’s letter of 17 June 2013 by the prison staff and its delayed handing over to the applicant? Did Russian law at the time contain clear regulations prohibiting the “censorship” of correspondence sent by the Court to a detained applicant? Did the notion of “censorship” include the opening and inspection of correspondence?