CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 19 septembre 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 27 March 1985 by Mr Harry Grace against the United Kingdom (No. 11523/85);   Whereas on 6 February 1989 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in his application the applicant complained that there had been an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, in relation to fourteen letters written by him while in prison, the applicant also complaining that in respect of six of the letters in question there had been a breach of his right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 4 March 1987 as regard thirteen of the above-mentioned letters and in its report adopted on 15 December 1988 expressed the opinion:   - by fifteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 1;   - by fifteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letters 2 and 5;   - by fifteen votes with one abstention, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letters 3, 6 and 9;   - by a unanimous vote, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 4;   - by nine votes to four, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 7;   - by twelve votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 8;   - by thirteen votes to one, with two abstentions, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 10;   - by a unanimous vote, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letters 11 and 12;   - by fifteen votes with one abstention, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter 13;   - by a unanimous vote, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention in the present case;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom, as regards letter 1, that the prohibition on the seeking of pen friends by prisoners was abolished in 1981, as regards letters 2 and 5, that these letters were stopped as a result of an erroneous application of the Prison Rules and that the necessary measures had been taken to ensure that the rules were correctly applied in future, as regards letter 4, that the prohibition on correspondence containing complaints about prison treatment not yet raised through the prescribed internal procedures was abolished in 1984 in respect of legal correspondence, and, as regards letter 10, that instructions had been issued in order that a prisoner be given an opportunity to rectify the address on a letter written by him if it was returned for being insufficiently addressed,   Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention:   i.    that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letters 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10;   ii.   that there has been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the other letters of the applicant;   iii. that there has been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention in this case;   Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom;   Decides that no further action is called for in this case.