CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juillet 2011

.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 } .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. 143 July 2011 Buldakov v. Russia - 23294/05 Judgment 19.7.2011 [Section I] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Loss by prison authorities of irreplaceable papers relating to prisoner’s application to European Court: failure to comply with Article 34   Facts – The applicant, a convicted prisoner, deposited a parcel containing his application to the European Court and over 900 pages of enclosures with the prison authorities, who registered its receipt. However, the parcel was never dispatched and inquiries made by the prosecutor’s office established that it had been lost. The authorities subsequently indicated that the official responsible had been disciplined and provided the applicant with two new application forms. The domestic courts dismissed a claim by the applicant for compensation on the grounds that he had not been irreversibly deprived of the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the European Court. Law – Article 34: It was difficult to accept the Government’s assertion that the heavy mailing had been inadvertently misplaced and lost shortly after being submitted to the prison authorities, who had special responsibility to ensure the strict control and supervision of detainees’ correspondence. However, even assuming its loss through negligence, that did not in itself relieve the authorities of their responsibility under the Convention, especially as the applicant had no other means of corresponding with the Court. The Government’s assertion that disciplinary action had been taken against the prison official responsible were vague and unsupported by evidence. It was also relevant that all or most of the documents included in the mailing could not be restored. In these circumstances, the prison administration’s failure to send the first application form with its voluminous attachments was serious enough to interfere with the proceedings before the Court and could even be perceived as discouraging the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition. Conclusion : failure to comply (unanimously). With respect to the applicant’s substantive complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Article 41: EUR 3,000 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