CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Szuluk v. the United Kingdom - 36936/05 Judgment 2.6.2009 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Monitoring of prisoner’s correspondence with his medical specialist: violation   Facts : The applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage while on bail pending trial on drugs charges for which he later received a 14-year prison sentence. He had two operations before being discharged to prison to serve his sentence. Thereafter, he was required to attend hospital every six months for a specialist check-up. He discovered that his correspondence with the neuro-radiology specialist supervising his hospital treatment had been monitored by a prison medical officer. His complaint to the domestic courts was dismissed after the Court of Appeal found that the risk that the applicant’s medical specialist, whose bona fides had never been challenged, could be “intimidated or tricked” into transmitting illicit messages was sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights. Law : The reading of the applicant’s correspondence constituted an “interference by a public authority” that was governed by law and was aimed at the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As to the necessity for the interference, the Court noted that, given the severity of his condition, it was understandable that the applicant should have been concerned that the monitoring of his correspondence with his specialist would inhibit their communication and prejudice reassurance that he was receiving adequate medical treatment. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant had abused or would abuse the confidentiality given to his medical correspondence and he was not a high-risk (Category A) prisoner. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the importance of unimpeded correspondence with secretarial staff of Members of Parliament outweighed any risk of abuse and, in the Court’s view, uninhibited correspondence between a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition and his medical specialist should be given no less protection. Indeed, the Court of Appeal had conceded that it could, in some cases, be disproportionate to refuse confidentiality to a prisoner’s medical correspondence and changes had since been enacted to the relevant domestic law to that effect. Lastly, the Court noted that the Government had failed adequately to explain why the risk of abuse involved in correspondence with named doctors whose exact address, qualifications and bona fides were not in question should be perceived as greater than the risk involved in correspondence with lawyers. The monitoring of the applicant’s medical correspondence had, therefore, not struck a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes