| Applicant name | Y. |
| Applicant type | Prisoner |
| Country | UK |
| Decision no. | 6870/75 |
| Date | 14/05/1977 |
| Judges | – |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | No interference |
| Type of privacy | Correspondence |
| Keywords | Means of communication; even if |
| Facts of the case | Person detained in mental institution; not allowed to send telegram, but allowed to send letters and to receive visitors. |
| Analysis | The fact that the person was unable to send a telegram did not result in an interference, as he was able to communicate via other ways. “even assuming that a telegram falls within the meaning of the term “correspondence” in Art . 8(1 ), that the refusal to allow the applicant to send the telegram is not shown to have interfered materially with his ability to correspond with his parents. It accordingly finds this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention.” |
| Documents | Decision |