CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. November 1996 Domenichini v. Italy - 15943/90 Judgment 15.11.1996 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Monitoring of prisoner's correspondence, including with his lawyers: violation Article 13 Effective remedy Relevant remedies: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Plea also went to merits of complaint based on Article   13. Conclusion : joined to merits (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Not contested that there had been "interference by a public authority" with exercise of applicant's right to respect for his correspondence. A.   "In accordance with the law" In the instant case Law no.   354 of 26   July 1975 left the authorities too much latitude, in particular going no further than identifying the category of persons whose correspondence could be censored and the competent court. It did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities, so that the applicant had not enjoyed the minimum degree of protection to which citizens were entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Purpose and necessity of the interference Finding of a breach of one of the requirements of Article 8 §   2 made it unnecessary for Court to ascertain whether the other two requirements had been complied with. Conclusion : unnecessary to determine issue (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 3 (B) OF THE CONVENTION Unnecessary to speculate on whether auditory checks had been made during conversations in visiting room between applicant and his lawyers. Applicant's defence rights infringed owing to delay in sending one of his letters to one of his lawyers. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Application to judge responsible for execution of sentences: could not be regarded as an effective remedy for the purposes of Article   13. Allegedly judicial character of the decisions whereby monitoring of the correspondence was ordered, stemming from nature of authority empowered to take them: did not stand up to scrutiny either. Possibility of recourse to administrative courts to challenge measures in question: Court of Cassation had held that Italian law did not provide any remedies in respect of the disputed decisions, and no regional administrative court appeared to have delivered a judgment on the subject. Conclusion : dismissal, after examination of merits, of the Government's preliminary objection and violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: not proved - claim dismissed (unanimously). Non-pecuniary damage: judgment provided sufficient just satisfaction (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Before the domestic courts: no claim for reimbursement. Before the Convention institutions: legal aid granted and no claim for additional reimbursement.   © 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