CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juillet 2007

.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. 99 July 2007 Tan v. Turkey - 9460/03 Judgment 3.7.2007 [Section II] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Indication of most appropriate form of redress (interference not “in accordance with the law”): bring domestic law into line with Convention   Facts : From his prison the applicant sent a letter to a newspaper criticising the conditions of detention in F-type prisons, which he said were incompatible with human dignity. The letter was intercepted by the prison’s reading committee and subsequently its disciplinary board, which refused to forward it because of its content. Law : Article   8 (correspondence) – Sections   144 and 147 of regulation no. 647 on prison management and the execution of sentences did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and arrangements for the exercise by the authorities of their discretion in the monitoring of inmates' correspondence. The interference had not been "in accordance with the law". Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation sufficient. The Court added that bringing the relevant domestic law into conformity with Article   8 of the Convention would be an appropriate way to put a stop to this type of violation. The violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   8 stemmed from a problem in Turkey’s legislation on the monitoring of correspondence, and the Court had already found a similar violation in its judgment of 15 May 2007 in the case of Koç v.   Turkey , no. 39862/02.   © 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