CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juin 2013

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164 June 2013 Yepishin v. Russia - 591/07 Judgment 27.6.2013 [Section I] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Prison administration’s refusal to pay postage for dispatch of prisoner’s letters to the European Court: no violation   Facts – The applicant, who was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony, complained that the colony authorities had refused to assist him with postage costs he could not afford for correspondence with the European Court. According to the Government, the authorities had twice paid for letters to be sent to the Court, but the supervising prosecutor had then informed the applicant’s representative that no federal budget funds had been allocated to provide free stationery to inmates. The applicant subsequently received money, stamps and envelopes from an NGO. Law – Article 34: Not providing a prisoner with the resources required to correspond with the Court could contribute to a finding of a breach of the State’s obligations under Article   34 of the Convention*. However, the Court did not consider the facts complained of by the applicant sufficient to disclose any prejudice in the presentation of his application. Although the authorities had on a number of occasions refused to pay the postage, it did not appear to have been excessively burdensome for him to bear the expenses himself. The applicant had been found fit for work and could have accepted employment that had been offered by the correctional colony. The fact that the applicant’s representative had sent him stamps and envelopes and cash to pay for the postage did not raise an issue under Article   34. Accordingly, the Government had not failed to comply with their obligation under that provision. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court found a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention. Article 41: EUR 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. *See Cotleţ v.   Romania , 38565/97 , §   71, 3   June 2003, Information Note   53.   © 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