CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 12 février 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the reports drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the applications lodged by Mr David Farrant, Mr Roger Gleaves, Mr William Costello, Mr Richard Smith, Mr Scott Stevens and Mr Harry Grace against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 7291/75, 7365/76, 8574/79, 8991/80, 9198/80 and 9551/81);   Whereas on 10 January 1986 the Commission transmitted the said reports to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention has elapsed without the cases having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in their applications introduced between 3 March 1975 and 26 August 1981 the applicants complained of the censorship of their correspondence by the British prison authorities, alleging a breach of various articles of the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible between 11 October 1979 and 4 March 1985 and in its reports adopted on 18 October 1985 it expressed the opinion by a unanimous vote that there had been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention in respect of the stopping of certain letters written by each of the applicants, that in Mr Costello's case the censorship of certain of the applicant's correspondence constituted a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention, that in Mr Smith's case there was a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention by virtue of an absence of effective domestic remedies for his censorship complaints, that in Mr Steven's case the censorship of certain of the applicant's letters was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention and that there had been a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention by virtue of an absence of effective domestic remedies for the applicant's Article 8 (art. 8) complaints;   Agreeing with the opinions expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Having examined the proposals made by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention in relation to the cases of Mr Farrant, Mr Costello, Mr Smith and Mr Stevens;   Whereas the Commission has stated that the merits of these applications resemble the test case of "Silver and others" and whereas in its Resolution DH (85) 15 in the "Silver and others" case the Committee was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment of the Court, which information was summarised in the appendix to that resolution;   Whereas, during the examination of these cases, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that it accepted the Commission's reports, that, following the decision of the House of Lords in Raymond v. Honey (1983) AC1, the prohibition on private criminal prosecutions by prisoners was removed, that the restriction on prisoners' correspondence in respect of private criminal prosecutions was abolished and that in the case of Mr Farrant, the sum of £188,10 for the applicant's legal costs was paid to the applicant's legal representatives;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   a.       Decides:   i. that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention in respect of the stopping of certain letters written by each of the applicants;   ii. that in Mr Costello's case there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;   iii. that in Mr Smith's case there has been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention;   iv. that in Mr Steven's case there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 13 (art. 6-1, art. 13) of the convention;   b.       Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for in these cases.