CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2024

.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 } Published on 24   June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   21329/22 G.S. against Italy lodged on 7   April 2022 communicated on 7   June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns access to pornographic magazines by the applicant, who is detained under the special prison regime provided by section 41   bis of the Prison Administration Act (Law no.   354 of 26   July 1975). In 2019 the prison administration rejected the applicant’s request to purchase a subscription to pornographic magazines. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. In 2020 the court responsible for the execution of sentences granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered that the prison administration proceed with the subscription to the magazines, provided that the applicant bear the costs, and that the magazine be delivered to him following an inspection ( visto di controllo ) by the prison authorities. The Ministry of Justice lodged an appeal on points of law and on 8   June 2021 the Court of Cassation overturned the lower court’s decision. The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention that the prison authorities’ refusal to allow him to purchase pornographic magazines, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation, amounted to a disproportionate interference with his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, through the refusal to allow the applicant to subscribe to pornographic magazines at his own cost? In particular, has a fair balance been struck between the competing interests involved in the present case?