CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 4 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 81292/17 Roman CHOCHOLÁČ against Slovakia lodged on 21 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a confiscation, by the prison authorities, of pornographic material possessed by the applicant who is serving a life prison sentence, and a disciplinary sanction imposed on him for the allegedly unlawful possession of such material. The applicant complains that the State interfered with his rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention and that such interference was not necessary in a democratic society. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, and/or with his freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Biržietis v. Lithuania , no. 49304/09, 14 June 2016) and/or Article 10 §   2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Pryanishnikov v. Russia , no. 25047/05, 10 September 2019)? In particular, did the domestic authorities carry out a proportionality test as required by the Court’s case-law (see, mutatis mutandis , Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 275 in fine , 15   October 2015)?