CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 mars 2005

.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. 73 March 2005 Meriakri v. Moldova - 53487/99 Judgment 1.3.2005 [Section IV] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Government measures and undertakings to settle the case deemed satisfactory, notwithstanding applicant’s opposition: struck out   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Censorship of a prisoner’s correspondence with his lawyer and the Court – Amendments to the relevant legislation following the present application: struck out   Facts: The applicant complained that, while he had been serving a sentence, the prison authorities had been opening his correspondence with, among others, the Court and his counsel. In order to settle the case the Government offered to pay the applicant the equivalent of EUR 890 (at the then applicable exchange rate) as compensation for any non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the interference with his correspondence with the Court and his lawyer. The Government also offered the applicant an official apology and submitted that they had already amended the relevant legislation to strengthen the protection of prisoners’ rights. The applicant asked the Court to reject the offer. Law: Article   37 § 1(c) – Having regard to the scope and extent of the various undertakings in the Government’s declaration, together with the amount of compensation proposed, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require otherwise. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   © 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