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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 October 2023     FIRST SECTION Application no. 82083/17 Giuseppe GULLOTTI against Italy lodged on 30 November 2017 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 alleged violation of the applicant’s right to correspondence and the effectiveness of the remedies at his disposal. The applicant alleges that the delayed delivery of the following correspondence amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention: (a) correspondence sent to him by his lawyer concerning criminal proceedings no. 5009/16 R.G. G.I.P., which were ongoing before the Messina Assize Court. The correspondence was available to the prison authorities at the latest on 26 February 2016 and was delivered to the applicant on 15   June 2017; (b) a telegram of condolences sent by the applicant on 21 May 2017 and delivered on 31 October 2017; (c) a letter sent by the applicant to his lawyer in May 2016, the delivery of which was authorised by decree no. 2017/5384 of the Reggio Emilia Judge responsible for the execution of sentences on 26 October 2017. The letter was posted on 31 October 2017; (d) copies of two judgments of the Court of Cassation sent to him by his lawyer on 23 March 2017, the delivery of which was authorised by decree   no.   2017/5377 of the Reggio Emilia Judge responsible for the execution of sentences on 26 October 2017. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective remedies for expediting the delivery of the correspondence and about the delay by the Bologna Court responsible for the execution of judgment and the Messina District Court to decide on the appeals lodged by the applicant against decisions to withhold correspondence concerning criminal proceedings no. 5009/16 R.G. G.I.P. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Cotleţ v. Romania , no. 38565/97, § 34, 3 June 2003)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?