| Applicant name | DE WILDE, OOMS AND VERSYP (“VAGRANCY”) |
| Applicant type | Natural Persons |
| Number of applicants | 3 |
| Country | Belgium |
| Decision no. | 2832/66 2835/66 2899/66 |
| Date | 18/06/1971 |
| Judges | WALDOCK ROLIN CASSIN HOLMBÄCK VERDROSS RODENBOURG ROSS WOLD BALLADORE PALLIERI MOSLER ZEKIA FAVRE CREMONA BILGE WIARDA SIGURJÓNSSON |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Necessary (disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others) |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Prisoners’ correspondence |
| Facts of the case | Applicants correspondence monitored while in prison. |
| Analysis | The Court finds that monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence “constitutes unquestionably an “interference by a public authority with the exercise of (the) right”. It thus takes a strickter approach than the Commission does sometimes, when holding that monitoring of prioners’ correspondence is an intrisic part of imprisonment and consequently will not be considered to fall under the scope of the right to privacy or that it does not imply an interference with that right. The Court stresses that it does, but finds that it is a legitimate one in this case. Interestingly, although the state has explicitly reminds the Court that it should deal with the specificies of the case and not with the legal regime as such, the Court seams to find more in general that restrictions of prioners’ correspondence may be necessary “for the purpose of the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” It does not specify which one of those grounds is applicable in this case, nor why. This led to the dissenting opinion of Judge Wold. ‘The authorities had no reason to believe that they had to censor the correspondence, either for the purpose of preventing disorder or crime, or for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The vagrants had committed no crime and even if the authorities, in their interference with the vagrants’ private correspondence, were within their jurisdiction according to Belgian law they were most certainly overstepping Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention. In regard to Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention I therefore find that a violation has taken place.’ Finally, the Court stresses that the case does not indicate a violation of Article 8+14 ECHR nor of Article 18 (abuse of power). |
| Other Article violation? | Article 5 violated |
| Damage awarded | Just satisfaction reserved |
| Documents | Judgment |