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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 64753/14 Giuseppe GULLOTTI against Italy lodged on 20 September 2014 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). The application concerns the limitations to the applicant’s right to correspondence and the effectiveness of the appeal against the decisions renewing these limitations. On 8 January 2013, the Reggio Emilia Judge responsible for the execution of sentences limited for three months the applicant’s right to correspondence only to relatives admitted for family visits (order SIUS no.   2013/111). This   decision was upheld on 12 March 2013 by the Bologna Court responsible for the execution of sentences (order no. 2013/653) and on 21   March 2014 by the Court of Cassation (R.G. no. 16705/2013). The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the limitation to his right to correspondence was not “necessary in a democratic society” as the domestic decision was not adequately reasoned. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of the remedies at his disposal, arguing that the final decision on the appeal ( reclamo ) against the order limiting his right to correspondence, namely the decision by the Court of Cassation of 21   March   2014 (R.G.   no.   16705/2013), was filed after the expiry of the appealed order, when the limitation had already been renewed by subsequent identical orders.   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, Campbell v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 13590/88, §§ 44-45, 25 March 1992, and, mutatis mutandis , Čiapas v. Lithuania , no. 4902/02,   §   25, 16   November   2006)? In   particular, was the interference with the applicant’s   right to respect for his correspondence “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article   8 § 2?   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 (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2) , no. 25498/94, §§ 84-97, 28   September   2000)?