CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   739 30.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IGORS DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Igors Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (application no. 61638/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the ban on the applicant’s corresponding with his mother during his detention; a violation of Article 8 on account of the opening and monitoring of the letters addressed to the applicant by the European Court of Human Rights ; a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) on account of the ban on the applicant’s attending the prison’s religious services; a violation of Article 34 (individual applications) on account of the repeated refusal to forward the applicant’s application form to the Court ; a violation of Article 34 on account of the assertion by the deputy governor of the prison to the effect that the applicant required the authorisation of the Latvian courts before writing to the Court; no violation of Article 34 as to the refusal of the prison authorities to provide the applicant with photocopies of certain documents.   As the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, the Court deemed it unnecessary to make an award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Igors Dmitrijevs, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1971 and lives in Riga.   On 19 June 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in Riga police headquarters on suspicion of attempted aggravated sexual assault. He stated that he had been beaten and ill-treated by the police officers in an attempt to extract a confession from him. While in police custody he was held in the police headquarters temporary isolation unit in what he described as inhuman conditions, and without food for the first two days. On 22   June 1999 he was placed in detention pending trial in Riga Central Prison.   The applicant lodged two complaints alleging ill-treatment while in police custody; both were unsuccessful.   On three occasions between 10 February and 15 November 2000 the applicant applied to Riga Regional Court, before which he had been committed for trial on a charge of attempted rape, for permission to correspond with his mother; on each occasion, the application was refused.   Meanwhile, in July 2000, the applicant requested permission from the court to take part in the religious ceremonies in the prison chaplaincy; the judge in charge of the case rejected the request, referring to the prison memorandum stating that the prison authorities “[could] not guarantee prisoners’ isolation during the ceremonies”.   During his detention pending trial the applicant approached the European Court of Human Rights with a view to lodging an application. The Registry of the Court sent him a letter accompanied by the documents required in order to lodge an application. The letter reached the applicant in an envelope which had been opened and bore a prison stamp. The applicant subsequently requested the prison authorities to provide him with photocopies of certain documents from his case file, and then of the whole file, for forwarding to the European Court; his requests were refused.   In August 2000 the applicant submitted his application form to the prison authorities for forwarding to the European Court; the document was sent back to him. According to the applicant, the prison authorities subsequently refused to send his form to the Court “owing to lack of funds”. The deputy prison governor explained to him later that, before writing to the Court, he had to obtain prior authorisation from the judge in charge of his criminal case. The applicant further submitted that the letters sent to him by the Court had been opened systematically.   On 27 February 2001 the applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for attempted sexual assault with aggravating circumstances. His conviction was upheld on appeal. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court on 14 December 2001.   Mr Dmitrijevs was released in December 2002.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 30 May 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He complained of the conditions of his detention in the temporary isolation unit at police headquarters. He submitted that his detention had been unlawful and complained of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained that his right to respect for his correspondence had been violated and that he had been prohibited from attending religious services in the prison chaplaincy. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for one’s correspondence), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 34 (individual applications).   Decision of the Court   The Court declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible as being out of time. It declared the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 14 inadmissible as being manifestly ill ‑ founded. Accordingly, it declared the complaints under Articles 8, 9 and 34 of the Convention admissible.   Article 8 The Court considered that the ban on the applicant’s writing to his mother amounted to interference with his right to respect for his correspondence. It assumed the interference to have been based on Article 53 of Decree no. 113 by the Minister of the Interior, which stated that prisoners’ correspondence with their families was subject to permission from the authority responsible for the case. That provision allowed the Latvian authorities too great a margin of discretion, as it imposed the requirement to obtain permission without defining the scope of the discretion granted to the authorities and the manner in which it was to be exercised.   The Court therefore considered that the interference at issue had not been in accordance with the law within the meaning of the Convention and held that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 9   The Court took the view that prohibiting the applicant from taking part in religious services which he had asked permission to attend undoubtedly constituted interference with the exercise of his right “to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance” within the meaning of Article 9. At the material time, Latvian law had contained no provisions governing the exercise of religious rights by those in pre-trial detention.   The Court therefore considered that the interference in question had not been in accordance with the law within the meaning of the Convention and held that there had been a violation of Article 9.   Articles 8 and 34   As to the opening and monitoring of the letters from the Court The Court noted that the opening and monitoring by the prison authorities of the letters it had sent to the applicant   had not been in accordance with the “law” within the meaning of Article   8   § 2 of the Convention. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article   8   §   2.   As to the refusal to forward the applicant’s application form The Court took the view that the authorities’ actions, which they did not deny, represented a typical example of hindrance prohibited by Article 34. Admittedly, the Convention did not require States to bear the costs of posting all prisoners’ correspondence. However, a problem could arise if an applicant’s correspondence was seriously hampered owing to a lack of funds. That was true in the applicant’s case, since the application form was one of the documents which was absolutely necessary under the Rules of Court.   The Latvian authorities had acted in breach of Article 34 by refusing repeatedly to send the applicant’s application form to the Court.   As to the assertion that the applicant had to obtain permission from the judge handling the case before writing to the European Court As the Latvian Government did not deny that assertion, the Court considered that its truth had been established. Given the applicant’s vulnerability and particular dependence on the prison authorities, a remark of that nature was sufficiently dissuasive to constitute a breach of Article 34.   The Court therefore held, on that point also, that the Latvian authorities had failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 34.   As to the refusal to provide photocopies of certain documents The Court did not consider that the refusal by the prison authorities to make copies at the State’s expense and give them to the applicant could be regarded as “hindrance” for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 34.   It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 34 on that point.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.