CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 9 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no 51742/15 Bojan POPLAZ against Germany lodged on 12 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the stoppage of the applicant’s letters, which were written in Slovenian, during his detention in the Hagen penal institution. Following his conviction of severe extortionate robbery, the applicant was placed in the Hagen penal institution, i.e. the penal institution in North Rhine-Westphalia in which persons convicted of criminal offences were initially placed for a limited period of time prior to being transferred to another penal institution in North Rhine-Westphalia where they were supposed to serve their sentence. In line with the rules governing the Hagen penal institution, which provided that detainees of German nationality had to do their written correspondence in German whereas foreign nationals could write in other languages, the letters of the applicant, a German citizen of Slovenian origin, to his relatives in Slovenia were stopped. QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in his enjoyment of his right to respect for his correspondence on the ground of his national origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention alone and under Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?