CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF048ED33 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#339966 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     716 01.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Tsonyo Tsonev v.Bulgaria ( application no. 33726/03 )   UNJUSTIFIED MONITORING OF A PRISONER’S CORRESPONDENCE   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect of 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) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Tsonyo Ivanov Tsonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). He was detained in Lovech Prison on several occasions between November 2002 and February 2005.   On 20 June 2003 the applicant complained to the Execution of Sentences Directorate that letters to or from his relatives, various administrative authorities and his lawyers in the criminal proceedings had been systematically monitored without any justification. The Directorate replied that the monitoring was in accordance with domestic legislation on execution of sentences.   Mr Tsonev unsuccessfully requested the Chief Public Prosecutor to seek a declaration from the Constitutional Court that the provisions of the Execution of Sentences Act authorising the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence were unconstitutional.   Further to a criminal complaint by the applicant, alleging an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence, the public prosecutor noted in an order of 3 November 2004 that there had been a failure to dispatch letters, amounting to an infringement, attributable to the prison administration, of the right of prisoners to respect for their correspondence. However, he observed that it was impossible to identify those responsible and to institute criminal proceedings, in view of the time that had elapsed and the lack of a register of incoming and outgoing mail. He forwarded the file to the prison governor so that action could be taken and suggested introducing a register of incoming and outgoing mail.   Relying on the State Responsibility for Damage Act, the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice on account of the failure to dispatch the letters. He was successful on appeal; in a judgment of 8 February 2006 the Gabrovo Regional Court found that the failure to dispatch the letters had resulted from shortcomings in the functioning of the prison administration and that the procedure for receiving mail had since been improved. The applicant was also awarded compensation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 8 (right to the respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, Mr Tsonev complained that his correspondence had been monitored by the prison authorities and that he had no effective domestic remedies available in respect of that complaint, especially as there was no direct access to the Constitutional Court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 October 2003 and declared partly admissible on 6 March 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that during the applicant’s detention, Bulgarian legislation had provided for the systematic monitoring of the correspondence of prisoners in pre-trial detention and those serving sentences.   The Court further noted that the applicant had received several letters that had been opened by the prison administration and that, following one of the applicant’s complaints, the authorities had themselves acknowledged that systematic monitoring took place.   The Court noted that at the relevant time the monitoring had been systematic and not subject to any time-limits, any requirement to justify its necessity in each individual case or any scrutiny by an independent authority.   The Court therefore considered that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, which had not been justified by a pressing social need. It thus found a violation of Article 8.   As regards the complaint under Article 13, the Court pointed out that the monitoring of Mr Tsonev’s correspondence had resulted from the application of Bulgarian legislation and not from an individual decision by the prison management or any other authority, and that on that account the applicant’s complaint fell foul of the principle that Article 13 did not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention .   The Court therefore found no violation of Article 13.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.