CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 57 October 2003 Chishti v. Portugal (dec.) - 57248/00 Decision 2.10.2003 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Prohibition on prisoner corresponding in a foreign language: inadmissible The applicant is a United States national of Pakistani origin, who was convicted in Portugal of falsification of credit cards, computer fraud and corruption. He was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to 14 years. Once in prison serving the sentence, the applicant was not permitted to correspond in Urdu with his family in Pakistan for security reasons. He filed several complaints with the prison governor and allegedly registered to complain to the prison judge. The United States Embassy intervened and offered to find and bear the costs of an English-Urdu translator to translate the applicant’s incoming and outgoing mail. The applicant declined the offer on the ground that it could expose his and his family members privacy to others. Inadmissible under Article 8 – Although the interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime, it could have raised a problem under this provision, since the applicant was a foreign inmate without family residing in the country of detention. However, the interference was proportionate given that the prison authorities had authorised the applicant to send mail at Christmas and a reasonable solution of translating his mail had been offered to him, which he had declined for unconvincing reasons: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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