CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 November 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19345/15 Plamen Yovchev STAYKOV against Bulgaria lodged on 16 April 2015 communicated on 29 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint that a telephone communication system, introduced by the prison authorities in 2007, monitored in practice all of the applicant’s conversations “in live mode”, including the applicant’s conversations with his legal representatives. The applicant further complains that a letter from the Court was handed over to him open, without any justification or explanation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the prison authorities’ monitoring in practice of all of his telephone conversations (see, mutatis mutandis , in the context of monitoring of all telephone conversations of minors deprived of liberty for educational purposes, D.L. v. Bulgaria , no.   7472/14, § 107, 19 May 2016)? In the affirmative, was such monitoring “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis , D.L. , cited above, §§ 113-114)?   2.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the alleged opening by the prison administration of a letter from the Court addressed to the applicant and the alleged loss by the administration of one sticker related to an application made by the applicant before the Court? In the affirmative, was that “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Petrov v. Bulgaria , no. 15197/02, §§ 40-45, 22 May 2008 and, in the context respectively of monitoring of prisoners’ written correspondence with lawyers and of opening of letters from the Court’s Registry, Radkov v. Bulgaria , no.   27795/03, §§ 20 and 22, 22 April 2010)?