CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC70CD4DB { width:263.14pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   27 September 2010     SECOND SECTION Application no. 21575/08 by Henrikas JANKOVSKIS against Lithuania lodged on 7 January 2008   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Henrikas Jankovskis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Pravieniškės prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is serving his sentence in Pravieniškės prison.   Internet access   On 30 May 2006 the applicant requested information from the Ministry of Education about the possibility of enrolling at university. He was subsequently informed that all relevant information was posted on an internet website. On 28 June 2006 the applicant addressed the prison authorities with a request for internet access. On 1 July 2006 the prison authorities informed the applicant that the rules in force did not extend to access to the internet for prisoners. On 2 February 2007, having reviewed the provisions regulating rules of detention the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed the complaint by the applicant. The court observed that although the prison rules did not explicitly prohibit the use of internet by the prisoners, the list of prohibited items included telephones and radio-communication. These limitations were designed to limit the prisoners’ possibilities to commit new crimes. The court then concluded that prohibition of use of internet was also limiting such possibilities. The court also observed that the requirements set by the prison administration’s order were mandatory for the applicant, as he was under an obligation to obey the prison order.   On 11 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. The court observed that no laws regulating prisoners’ rights sanctioned the use of internet, and that the prison authorities would act ultra vires if they allowed the use of internet by prisoners. It also noted that if prisoners had access to the internet, the prison authorities would be hampered in their fight against crime by being unable to fully monitor the prisoners’ activities. Furthermore, under the existing rules, the prisoners’ post also had to go through the prison authorities, and such surveillance would be inadequate if the prisoners had access to electronic email. Under such circumstances, the prison authority’s denial of access to internet was justified and legitimate.   Denial of the extended visit   On 7 November 2006 the prison authorities granted the applicant’s request for an extended visit by his parents on 30-31 December 2006. On 18 December 2006 the applicant was punished for violation of the prison’s rules and moved to a special order group with restricted rights, after he had failed to fulfil the conditions of an earlier penalty. On 29 December 2006 the applicant was also informed that he was no longer allowed to have extended visits. The applicant lodged an appeal. On 4 May 2007 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court upheld the refusal as legitimate. On 6 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. The court observed that the legal right to an extended visit was restricted to those persons in the simple order group only and not extended to those in the special order group.     Claim for damages   On 18 July 2006 the prison authorities seized the personal computer which the applicant had brought into prison. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a claim for damages caused by both the seizure of his computer and the conditions of detention, which, according to the applicant, were inhuman. On 15 January 2007 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the claim by the applicant as unfounded. On 12 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court modified the decision of the lower court. The court concluded that the computer had been unlawfully seized by the prison authority. It also declared that prison conditions were satisfactory overall, except for several minor details, and that the gravity of these violations was not such as would amount to inhuman conditions or ill-treatment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention of the refusal to give him access to the internet. He maintains that, by this decision, his right to receive and impart information and ideas was violated and claims that the rules in force do not extend to a ban on the use of the internet by prisoners. The applicant also complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 about the denial of extended visits, maintaining that this amounted to punishment twice. In his application submitted on 28 August 2008, the applicant complains under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention about the prison conditions. He maintains that he suffered discrimination due to the court’s refusal to award him damages for the violation of his rights as a detainee. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to receive and impart information or ideas? In particular, did the refusal of internet access constitute such an interference? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of   Article 10 §   2?