Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (prisoner)
Country Germany
Decision no. 2375/64
Date 07/02/1967
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded; Ratione materiae; Ratione personae
Type of privacy Informational Privacy
Keywords Prisoner; right to correspondence
Facts of the case Applicant complains that the prison authorities and the hospital authorities opened, read, and delayed the transmission of several letters to his lawyers, the delay in one case amounting to eight days.
Analysis The Commission stresses again that ‘an ordinary control of correspondence is considered to be an inherent feature of imprisonment; whereas, having regard to the very short delay in the transmission of the letters concerned, the Commission finds that the conduct of the prison or hospital authorities does not amount to an interference with the Applicant’s freedom of correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention’. Consequently, the right not to have letters controlled and monitored is not covered by the right to privacy under the ECHR; the right to have letters sent without undue delay is, but in this case the delay is so minimal that it does not pass the de minimis rule.
Documents Decision