CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 16 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45558/15 Ivan MARIČÁK against Slovakia lodged on 12 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withholding of a letter addressed to the applicant who is serving a prison sentence. The letter was withheld by a prison educator on the grounds of its defamatory/abusive content which was deemed to be likely to perturb the execution of the sentence. The applicant’s complaints to the prison administration as well as to the regional and general prosecution authorities were dismissed as unfounded and his two constitutional appeals were rejected on formal grounds. Relying on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about an unjustified and arbitrary interference with his correspondence and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, was the domestic law at issue in the present case drafted with sufficient clarity and precision, and was it appealable to courts (see Puzinas v. Lithuania (no.2) , no. 63767/00, 9 January 2007)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?