Applicant name X.
Applicant type Prisoner
Country UK
Decision no. 8065/77
Institution Commission
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded (public safety; prevention disorder and crime; rights and freedoms of others)
Type of privacy Family privacy; informational privacy
Keywords Prison visits montiored; even if; margin of appreciation
Facts of the case Applicant has been convicted for plotting terrorist activities. When family memebers visit him, the conversations are monitored.
Analysis The case is interesting for three reasons. First, the Commission does not want to say that there has been an interference with applicant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR, but only stresses that this appears to be so prima facie . Also, it does not explicitly say that Article 3, which the applicant invokes, is not applicable to this case, but simply choses not to discuss it. Second, the Commission does not want to chose which ground applies to this case, but refers to the protection of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. No explanation is given. Third, with respect to the question whether the measures are necessary – they are, the Commission finds – the Commission stresses that the national authorities had a margin of appreciation. Why the Commission uses this term in this case and whether that margin is big or small is not further elaborated.
Documents Decision