Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
15.06.2006
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Kornakovs, was detained on remand in prison pending trial. The applicant himself and several of his family members sent requests for leave to visit the applicant in prison to the judge examining his case. During two years such request was granted only once to the applicant’s mother and brother. All other requests for visits were denied by the judge simply by stamping the request with a stamp “Denied” and without providing any reasons. Moreover, the prison authorities opened a letter from the Court addressed to him.
Complaint
Mr. Kornakovs alleged that the prohibition to meet his family violated his right to private and family life. He also complained that the opening of the letter violated his right to respect for his correspondence.
Court's ruling
The Court emphasized that the national authorities should assist prisoners in maintaining contact with their close family. The Court observed that by the time of his mother’s first request to visit him, Mr Kornakovs had already spent more than three years in detention on remand. The Court considered that only exceptional circumstances could justify an absolute prohibition on family visits after such a long period of isolation. The judge had not, however, given any reasons for his decision to reject these repeated requests. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Mr. Kornakov’s right to private and family life.
The Court found that the law allowing the prison authorities to monitor prisoners’ correspondence allowed this monitoring in general, without determining situations or conditions such as length when such monitoring should be used. The Court noted that monitoring of correspondence can be allowed only in exceptional situations and these situations must be determined by law. Considering that the Latvian law did not provide for the limits or conditions of the authorities’ right to monitor prisoner’s correspondence, nor effective remedy for challenging the necessity of such monitoring, the Court concluded that it lacked clarity to constitute “law” within the meaning of the Convention. Since the interference of Mr. Kornakovs right for respect for his correspondence had not been prescribed by law, the Court found a violation of these rights.