Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural person (prisoner)
Country The United Kingdom
Decision no. 6564/74
Date 21/05/1975
Institution Commission
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded (public safety; health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others)
Type of privacy Family privacy
Keywords Conjugal visit prisoner; European Consensus; limmitation clause
Facts of the case Prisoner is denied conjugal visits
Analysis The case is interesting for four reasons:

1. The Commission reverses the claim; instead of analysing Article 3 ECHR, which is invoked by applicant, it discusses the matter under Article 8 and 12 ECHR.
2. With respect to Article 12 (right to founding a family through conjugal visits), is tresses that in contrast to Article 8 ECHR, the right to marry and found a family is an absolute right in that no limmitation clause is included such as in paragraph 2 of Article 8 ECHR.
3. The Commission refers to its earlier decision, pointing to a European consensus on the point of limmiting conjugal visits. Interestingly, if refers to the ground of ‘public safety’ to legitimize the limitation.
4. Finally, with respect to the right to have access to his children, the Commission finds that such is necessary in light of the protection of health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others.

Documents Decision