CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2003

.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. 54 June 2003 Cotleţ v. Romania - 38565/97 Judgment 3.6.2003 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Refusal of prison authorities to provide material for correspondence with the Court: violation   Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Pressure by prison authorities with regard to a detainee’s correspondence with the Convention organs: violation   Facts : The applicant, who is serving a prison sentence for murder, lodged an application with the European Commission of Human Rights in 1995. He stated that the letters sent by the Commission had been opened when they reached him and that he was required to hand his letters to the Commission to the prison authorities in an unsealed envelope; subsequently, a letter from the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights reached him in an envelope which had been opened. His correspondence with the Commission and then with the Court was delayed. In March 1999, the applicant complained that he had been prevented from writing to the Court because the authorities refused to supply him with writing paper and envelopes. The applicant further stated that his correspondence with the Convention organs had attracted the hostility of the prison administration and expressed his fears on that subject. Law : Article 8 – The refusal of the prison administration to supply the applicant with the envelopes, stamps and writing paper necessary for his correspondence with the Court constitutes a failure by the respondent State to comply with its positive obligation to ensure effective observance of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 34 – The applicant’s fears of being transferred to another prison or of experiencing “even more problems” owing to the discontent of the warders because of his correspondence with the Court were not denied by the respondent Government. The applicant did not wish to reveal the name of the prisoner who had helped him to translate the application form in case that prisoner should experience problems with the prison directorate. The Court considers that that may amount to acts of intimidation, which, combined with the failure of the prison authorities to give the applicant the necessary materials for his correspondence with the Court and also with the delays in forwarding and the systematic opening of his letters to or from the Court or the Commission constitute a form of illegal and unacceptable pressure which infringed the applicant’s right of individual application, in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. That conclusion is all the more imperative in the present case, having regard to the vulnerability of the applicant, shut up in a closed space and thereby having few contacts with his close relatives or with the outside world. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 owing to the delays in forwarding his letters to the Commission and the opening of the letters to or from the Commission and the Court (cf. the Petra v. Romania judgment of 23 September 1998). Article 41 – The Court awards the applicant a sum for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages. It awards costs and expenses.   © 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