CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juin 2009

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   439 02.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SZULUK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Szuluk v. the United Kingdom (application no. 36936/05) concerning the monitoring by prison authorities of medical correspondence between the applicant – a convicted prisoner – and his external specialist doctor.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Edward Szuluk, is a British national who was born in 1955 and is currently in prison in Staffordshire (United Kingdom).   Mr Szuluk was sentenced in November 2001 to 14 years’ imprisonment for drugs offences. In April 2001, while on bail pending trial, the applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage for which he had two operations. Following his discharge back to prison, he was required to go to hospital every six months for a specialist check-up.   The applicant complained, unsuccessfully, before the local courts that his correspondence with the neuro-radiology specialist who was supervising his hospital treatment had been monitored by a prison medical officer.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Poland), President , Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 8, Mr Szuluk complained that the prison authorities had intercepted and monitored his medical correspondence.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court noted that it was clear and not contested that there had been an “interference by a public authority” with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. It further observed that it was accepted by the parties that the reading of the applicant’s correspondence had been governed by law and that it had been aimed at the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.     Mr Szuluk submitted that the monitoring of his correspondence with his medical specialist inhibited their communication and prejudiced reassurance that he was receiving adequate medical treatment while in prison. Given the severity of his medical condition, the Court found the applicant’s concerns to be understandable. Moreover, there had not been any grounds to suggest that Mr Szuluk had ever abused the confidentiality given to his medical correspondence in the past or that he had any intention of doing so in the future. Furthermore, although he had been detained in a high security prison which also held Category A (high risk prisoners), he had himself always been defined as Category B (prisoners for whom the highest security conditions were not considered necessary).   Nor did the Court share the Court of Appeal’s view that the applicant’s medical specialist, whose bona fides had never been challenged, could be “intimidated or tricked” into transmitting illicit messages or that that risk had been sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights. This was particularly so since the Court of Appeal had further acknowledged that the importance of unimpeded correspondence with secretarial staff of MPs (Members of Parliament), although subject to the same kind of risks, outweighed any risk of abuse.   Indeed, uninhibited correspondence with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition should be given no less protection than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had conceded that it could, in some cases, be disproportionate to refuse confidentiality to a prisoner’s medical correspondence and changes had since been enacted to the relevant domestic law to that effect. The Court also found that the Government had failed to provide sufficient reasons to explain why the risk of abuse involved in correspondence with named doctors whose exact address, qualifications and bona fides were not in question should be perceived as greater than the risk involved in correspondence with lawyers.   The Court therefore concluded that the monitoring of Mr Szuluk’s medical correspondence had not struck a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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.