CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 5 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35673/18 Miroslav MASLÁK against Slovakia lodged on 19 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withholding of a letter addressed by the applicant, who is serving a prison sentence, to another prisoner. The letter was withheld by the prison administration on the grounds of its defamatory/abusive content which was deemed to be likely to perturb the execution of the sentence. The applicant’s administrative action to the court was rejected for lack of competence and transmitted to the prosecution authorities. The prosecution dismissed his complaints as unfounded. Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unjustified and arbitrary interference with his right to respect for correspondence, the lack of access to a court (similarly to his other apps. nos. 38321/17, 82925/17, 156/18, 7426/18, 9755/18, 14907/18, 29635/18, 29636/18 and 35668/18) and the lack of an effective domestic remedy.   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? Was the withholding of the impugned letter justified (see Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2) , no. 63767/00, 9   January 2007)?   2.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the dispute in the present case? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 147-150, 23 February 2017)?   3.     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?