CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2023

.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 } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; 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 } .s26138258 { margin-top:50pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39362/20 Domenico GALLICO against Italy lodged on 28 August 2020 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is detained in the Sassari prison under the special regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act (Law no.   354 of 26 July 1975). The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to correspondence. In particular, the applicant complains that on 13 January 2018, the prison authorities intercepted the correspondence sent by his lawyer, delivered the paper documents contained therein, but withheld a CD-ROM. The applicant alleges that, although on 10 October 2019 the Sassari Tribunal responsible for the execution of the judgment ( Tribunale di sorveglianza ) granted the applicant’s appeal ( reclamo ) against the decision to withhold the CD-ROM and ordered its immediate delivery to the applicant, the authorities delayed the delivery of the CD-ROM until 4 March 2020. The case raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Cotleţ v. Romania , no. 38565/97, § 34, 3 June 2003)?