CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2023

.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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37887/22 Patrizio BOSTI against Italy lodged on 15 July 2022 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is detained in the Parma prison under the special regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act (Law no.   354 of 26 July 1975). According to the applicant, the prison administration failed to deliver the following correspondence to him, and did not inform about the correspondence having been formally withheld: (a)   correspondence sent to him by his lawyer on 17 March 2022 and delivered to the Parma prison on 24 March 2022, which included an authority form to be signed by the applicant for the purpose of lodging an application with the Court; (b)   a telegram sent to him by his lawyer on 5 April 2022. The applicant complains that the failure to deliver the above correspondence to him amounted to a violation of his rights under Article   8 of the Convention and that the failure to deliver the correspondence under point (a) also hindered his right to individual application under Article 34 of the Convention.   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 (see Lav ents v.   Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 134-35, 28 November 2002, and Mes sina v.   Italy , 26   February 1993, § 31, Series A no. 257-H)?   2.     Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention (see Meh met Ali Ayhan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   4536/06 and 53282/07, §§ 39-45, 4 June 2019)?