Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
29.01.2002
Facts
The applicant, Mr. B., was serving his prison sentence. After ten days’ detention in the prison, he was allowed four sheets of paper and four envelopes. No telephone facilities were available to the prisoners apart from previously announced incoming telephone calls not exceeding fifteen minutes. Since the national law provided that the prisoners could not correspond with the former inmates, his correspondence with his representative, a former inmate of the prison, regarding proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights had been opened and withheld by the prison authorities although these letters were marked “from lawyer to client”.
Complaint
The applicant claimed that he was prevented from establishing contact outside prison, among other reasons, because of extremely limited access to the telephone. He also complained that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence with his lawyers in violation of his right to respect for his correspondence.
Court's ruling
The Court reiterated that it is important for prisoners to be able to maintain contacts with their family and friends outside prison. However, in respect of the telephone facilities, the Court considered that Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to make telephone calls, in particular where the facilities for contact by way of correspondence are available and adequate.
The Court continued that where, as in the present case, telephone facilities are provided by the prison authorities, these may be subjected to legitimate restrictions. Having found that other means of communication were available to the applicant as well as the limitations on the usage of telephone facilities were necessary to ensure that all prisoners are able to use these facilities from time to time, the Court found no violation of the right to a private life
The Court emphasized that although it could understand that safety considerations may provide for a necessity to screen prisoners’ correspondence with former inmates, it could find no reasons for absolute ban of such correspondence. The Government had not presented any reasons for such interference than the existing law. Therefore, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence.