CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     295   3.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COTLET v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Cotleţ v. Romania (application no. 38565/97). 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 delays in forwarding the applicant’s letters to the Commission; ●     there had also been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that the applicant’s correspondence with the Commission and the Court had been opened; ●     there had also been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the prison authority’s refusal to supply the applicant with the necessary materials for his correspondence with the Court; ●     there had been a violation of Article 34 (right of individual application) of the Convention; and ●     it was unnecessary to examine the complaint of a violation of Article 8 taken together with Article 34 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,500   euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,300 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 920 he had already received in legal aid.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Silvestru Cotleţ, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives at Gura-Humorului. The case concerns his difficulties in corresponding with the Convention institutions after lodging his application.   On 23 July 1992 he was convicted of murder by the Caraş-Severin County Court and sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. He was sent to Drobeta Turnu-Severin Prison and subsequently transferred to penal institutions in Timişoara, Gherla, Jilava, Rahova, Craiova, Tg. Ocna and Mărgineni. He lodged an application with the European Commission of Human Rights from prison in November 1995 complaining about the allegedly unfair nature of the proceedings that had ended with his conviction.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16   November 1995 and allocated to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 10 October 2000 and 16 April 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of interference with his correspondence with the Convention institutions, including delays in forwarding his letters to the Court and the Commission, the opening of his letters to those institutions, and the prison authorities’ refusal to provide him with paper, envelopes and stamps for his letters to the Court. He also complained of a violation of his right of individual application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention   Delays in forwarding the applicant’s letters to the Commission and the Court   The Court noted that between November 1995 and October 1997 the applicant’s correspondence had taken between 1 month and 10 days and 2 months and 6 days to reach its destination. Such delays amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence. Referring to its case-law, the Court observed that it had previously held that the Romanian legislation on the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence was incompatible with the requirement under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention for an interference to be “in accordance with the law”. Consequently, finding that that requirement was not satisfied, the Court held that there had been a violation of the Convention under this head.   Opening of the applicant’s correspondence with the Commission and the Court   As regards the period up to 24 November 1997, when a decree was issued guaranteeing the confidentiality of prisoners’ correspondence, the Court found that the fact that the applicant’s letters had been opened amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence: that interference had been based on national provisions which had not amounted to a “law” for the purposes of Article 8 paragraph 2 of the Convention. Consequently, it held that there had been a violation of the Convention under that head.   With regard to the period after 24 November 1997, the Court noted that the facts were in dispute. The case file showed that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence had continued. In the absence of any specific information from the parties on the point, the Court assumed that the basis for the interference was the Minister of Justice’s decree of 24 November 1997. It noted that the decree was referred to under various different numbers and did not appear to have been published. Accordingly, the Court found that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   The prison authority’s refusal to provide the applicant with writing materials for his correspondence with the Court   The Court noted that inherent in the right to respect for correspondence, as guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention, was the right to writing materials. It noted that several letters in which the applicant had related the difficulties he was experiencing had arrived in envelopes from other prisoners. The Court did not find the Government’s submission that the applicant had been entitled to two free envelopes a month substantiated. It also found that the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence was not adequately protected by the provision of envelopes. It noted that the Government had not disputed that the applicant’s requests had been turned down because there were no stamped envelopes for overseas correspondents available. In the circumstances, the Court found that the authorities had not discharged their positive obligation to supply the applicant with writing materials for his correspondence with the Court and, accordingly, held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     Article 34 of the Convention   The Court found that the applicant’s fears about being transferred to another prison or encountering other problems as a result of lodging his application could amount to intimidation. When combined with the failure to provide him with the necessary writing materials for his correspondence with the Court, the delays in forwarding his correspondence to the Court and the Commission and the systematic opening of that correspondence constituted a form of unlawful and unacceptable pressure that violated the applicant’s right of individual application. Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.   Article 8 taken together with Article 34 of the Convention   In view of its findings on the other complaints, the Court held that no separate examination of this complaint was necessary.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.