CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 janvier 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 203 January 2017 Jankovskis v. Lithuania - 21575/08 Judgment 17.1.2017 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to receive information Restriction placed on prisoner’s access to an Internet site providing educational information: violation Facts – The applicant, a prisoner, complained that he had been refused access to a website run by the Ministry of Education and Science, thus preventing him from receiving education-related information in breach of Article   10 of the Convention. Law – Article 10: The question at issue was not the authorities’ refusal to release the requested information. Rather, the applicant’s complaint concerned a particular means of accessing – specifically, via the Internet – information published on a website that was freely available in the public domain. Imprisonment inevitably entailed a number of restrictions on prisoners’ communications with the outside world, including on their ability to receive information. Article   10 could not be interpreted as imposing a general obligation to provide access to the Internet, or to specific Internet sites for prisoners. However, in the circumstances of the case, since access to information relating to education was granted under Lithuanian law, the restriction of access to the Internet site in question constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder and crime. The website to which the applicant wished to have access contained information about learning and study programmes in Lithuania. The information on that site was regularly updated to reflect, for example, admission requirements for the current academic year. It was not unreasonable to hold that such information was directly relevant to the applicant’s interest in obtaining education, which was in turn relevant for his rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration into society. The domestic decisions had focused on the legal ban on prisoners having Internet access instead of examining the applicants’ argument that access to a particular website was necessary for his education. The Internet played an important role in people’s everyday lives, in particular since certain information was exclusively available on the Internet. The Lithuanian authorities had not considered the possibility of granting the applicant limited or controlled Internet access to that particular website administered by a State institution, which could hardly have posed a security risk. The Court was not persuaded that sufficient reasons had been put forward to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information which, in the specific circumstances of the case, could not be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. (See Kalda v.   Estonia , 17429/10, 19   January 2016, Information Note   192 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes