Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (prisoner)
Country Germany
Decision no. 2279/64
Date 31/05/1967
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision (Partial)
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Ratione materiae
Type of privacy Informational Privacy
Keywords Prisoner; right to correspondence
Facts of the case Man believes official authorities have not properly dealt with the death of a man and makes harsh accusations. He treated in a medical facility and imprisoned. He complains that several letters were confiscated.
Analysis Like in previous cases, the Commission stresses again that the ordinary control of a prisoner’s correspondence is to be considered as an inherent feature and that ´this control by the prison authorities or by the competent court may also include the right under certain conditions to stop letters, for instance, if they tend to influence witnesses in a case still pending.´ Consequently, it found no infringement on Article 8 ECHR. Herewith, the Commission makes clear that even blocking correspondence, not only monitoring, censoring or delaying it, of correspondence is simply not covered by the right to privacy.
Documents Decision