CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 1992

.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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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. March 1992 Campbell v. the United Kingdom - 13590/88 Judgment 25.3.1992 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Control by prison authorities in Scotland of a prisoner's correspondence to and from his solicitor and with the European Commission of Human Rights: 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.   ARTICLE 8 A.   Correspondence with his solicitor 1.   "Interference" The applicant had been informed by the prison authorities that incoming and outgoing correspondence with his solicitor could be examined under the Prison Rules which provided for the opening and reading of such letters - thus there was an interference. 2.   "In accordance with the law" National courts have examined and upheld the validity of prison rules providing for the opening and reading of prisoners' correspondence - Court sees no reason to call into question their findings. 3.   Legitimate aim "Prevention of disorder or crime". 4.   "Necessary in a democratic society" In principle letters to and from a lawyer are privileged under Article 8 - the prison authorities may open a letter from a lawyer to a prisoner where they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure - suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided - reading should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. No pressing social need for the opening and reading of the applicant's correspondence with his solicitor - interference not "necessary in a democratic society". Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). B.   Correspondence with the Commission Letters to the Commission - not established that they had been opened. Letters from the Commission - opening also an interference in accordance with Scottish law and for "the prevention of disorder or crime" - not necessary in a democratic society - the risk of abuse being so negligible that it must be discounted. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 25 § 1 Matter raised ex officio by the Commission but not pursued before the Court. Conclusion : not necessary to examine this question. III.   ARTICLE 50 A.   Damage: finding of a breach in itself sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: claim awarded in full. Conclusion : United Kingdom to pay specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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