CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 2000

.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 22 September 2000 Messina v. Italy (no. 2) - 25498/94 Judgment 28.9.2000 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Special regime of detention limiting visits of family to prisoner belonging to criminal organisation: no violation Respect for correspondence Systematic censorship of prisoner’s correspondence by prison authorities: violation Facts : On a number of occasions between 1992 and 1998 the applicant was charged with and convicted of involvement in Mafia-type activities. In particular, he was wanted for the murder of a judge and had been sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. In 1993 the Minister of Justice issued a decree subjecting him to a special regime for reasons of public order and security, owing to his links with the Mafia. Under that regime, visits from prisoners’ families were limited and, provided prior authorisation was obtained from the courts, their correspondence was monitored. The applicant challenged the decree but was unsuccessful. The governors of the prisons in which he was successively held obtained an authorisation to monitor his correspondence. Eight decrees were issued renewing the special regime for six monthly periods. On several occasions, some of the restrictions on visits from the family were lifted by the courts; however, they were systematically reinstated by successive decrees. The applicant appealed to the court responsible for the execution of sentences against all nine decrees, but to no avail. None of the appeals were heard within the statutory time-limit of ten days. Some of the restrictions, notably those concerning visits by members of the family, were nonetheless lifted in 1997. The applicant ceased to be subject to the special regime in 1998. Furthermore, several letters which the applicant had asked his wife to forward to the Commission were received by her marked “censored” by the prison authorities. Law : Article 8 (family life) – The applicant was subject to a special prison regime, one of the features of which was a strict limit on the number of visits by members of the family and strict supervision of those visits. Those additional restrictions constituted an interference in the applicant’s family life. They were in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder, public safety and the prevention of crime. The aim of the special prison regime was to prevent all contact between the prisoner and the criminal milieu from which he came. Before the special regime was brought in, prisoners from the Mafia continued to be influential within that criminal organisation despite being detained. In the light of the specific nature of such criminal organisations and of the importance of family relations in their operation, it was reasonable for the legislature to consider that such measures were necessary to attain the aforementioned legitimate aims. Between 1993 and 1998, the period during which the applicant was subject to the special regime, a warrant was outstanding for him for the murder of a judge, he was serving a seventeen-years’ prison sentence and other proceedings were pending against him for being a member of a Mafia-type organisation. The imposition of the special regime therefore appeared to be justified throughout that period. Furthermore, the restrictions on visits from the family were not imposed throughout the period for which the applicant was subjected to the special regime. They were relaxed on a number of occasions, demonstrating the authorities’ willingness to help the applicant to remain in contact with his close relatives and to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s rights and the aims of the special regime. It followed that the restrictions on the right to respect for family life did not go beyond what was necessary in a democratic society to achieve the aims pursued. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 8 (correspondence) – The monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence was authorised by court orders based on section 18 of Law no. 354 of 1975. That provision, which did not regulate the length of the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence or the grounds for which such censorship could be imposed, was vague as to the extent of the relevant authorities’ discretion in that sphere and the way in which it was to be exercised. In conclusion, since there were no subsequent provisions clarifying that provision, the interference could not be regarded as being in accordance with the law. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – Decrees by the Minister of Justice imposing a special regime could be challenged before the court responsible for the execution of sentences by lodging an application, which had no suspensive effect, within ten days after the date the decree was communicated to the prisoner concerned. The court then had ten days in which to decide the application. The Court observed that the reason the courts had only ten days to decide was because of the grave effect the special regime had on the prisoner’s rights and the limited period for which the impugned decree was valid. In the case before the Court, the systematic failure to comply with the ten-day time-limit had significantly reduced, and almost made nugatory, the impact of the court’s review of the minister’s decrees, since the applicant had been subjected to the restrictions for longer than necessary, owing to the delays in delivering the decisions. An application to the court responsible for the execution of sentences did not therefore constitute an effective remedy. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court held that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the 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