CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93 January 2007 Ekinci and Akalın v. Turkey - 77097/01 Judgment 30.1.2007 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Interception of prisoners' letters to their lawyer: violation   Facts : The applicants were serving a prison sentence for belonging to a terrorist organisation. They complained that their letters had been intercepted by the prison authorities. Under domestic law, letters to or from prisoners were vetted by the prison administration, except for applications addressed to official bodies. Any correspondence regarded as inappropriate was transferred to a disciplinary board, which decided whether the letter should be sent in its entirety or whether the inappropriate parts should first be crossed out. Any letters regarded as totally objectionable were destroyed if so decided by the disciplinary board. The applicants' lawyer complained that their letters had been subject to scrutiny and in particular that two letters they had addressed to him had not been sent on. In those letters the applicants had complained about operations by security forces in prisons and claimed that they had been ill-treated. Law : Correspondence with one's lawyer, regardless of its purpose, was privileged under Article 8, especially where that correspondence constituted a preliminary step in the use of a remedy to complain about treatment during a period of detention. The interception of private letters “calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt” or “contain[ing] material deliberately calculated to hold the prison authorities up to contempt” was not “necessary in a democratic society”; nor was a prohibition on allegations against prison officers. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 - Each of the applicants was awarded EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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