CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 41671/15 Vladimir Anatolyevich RUDYKH and Others against Russia lodged on 9 July 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns non-selective and routine monitoring of the correspondence exchange between the first applicant, a life prisoner, the second applicant, his mother, and the third applicant, his partner. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Is the system allowing the routine monitoring/censorship of prisoners’ non-privileged correspondence set forth by the Code of Execution of Sentences? If so, does it constitute an interference with the applicants’ rights to respect for their private and/or family life and correspondence? If so, is it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Is the interference “prescribed by law”? (b)     If so, does it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? (c)     If so, is it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? More specifically, does the Code of Execution of Sentences limit the length and scope of the monitoring of non-privileged correspondence? Does it provide for the possibility of carrying out a balancing exercise and assessing the proportionality of that measure in each case (see as far as relevant Yefimenko v. Russia , no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013)?