Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
interference with their right to respect for their correspondence, provided that the paper is immediately available (Cotleţ v. Romania, § 61). 544. Article 8 does not require States to pay the postage costs of all correspondence sent by prisoners (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, §§ 56-58). However, this matter should be assessed on a case by case basis as an issue could arise if a prisoner’s correspondence was seriously hindered for lack of financial resources. Thus, the Court has held that: the refusal by the prison authorities to provide an applicant lacking the financial resources to buy such materials with the envelopes, stamps and writing paper needed for correspondence with the Court in Strasbourg may constitute a failure by the respondent State to comply with its positive obligation to ensure effective respect for the right to respect for correspondence (Cotleţ v. Romania, §§ 59 and 65); in the case of a prisoner without any means or any support who is entirely dependent on the prison authorities, those authorities must provide him with the necessary material, in particular stamps, for his correspondence with the Court (Gagiu v. Romania, §§ 91-92). 545. An interference with the right to correspondence that is found to have occurred by accident as a result of a mistake on the part of the prison authorities and is followed by an explicit acknowledgement and sufficient redress (for example, the adoption by the authorities of measures ensuring that the mistake will not be repeated) does not raise an issue under the Convention (Armstrong v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 29). 546. Proof of actual receipt of mail by the prisoner is the State’s responsibility; in the event of a disagreement between the applicant and the respondent Government before the Court as to whether a letter was actually handed over, the Government cannot simply produce a record of incoming mail addressed to the prisoner, without ascertaining that the item in question did in fact reach its addressee (Messina v. Italy, § 31). 547. The authorities responsible for posting outgoing letters and receiving incoming mail should inform prisoners of any problems in the postal service (Grace v. the United Kingdom, Commission report, § 97).
4. Telephone conversations 548. Article 8 of the Convention does not confer on prisoners the right to make telephone calls, in particular where the facilities for communication by letter are available and adequate (A.B. v. the Netherlands, § 92; Ciszewski v. Poland (dec.)). However, where domestic law allows prisoners to speak by telephone, for example to their relatives, under the supervision of the prison authorities, a restriction imposed on their telephone communications may amount to “interference” with the exercise of their right to respect for their correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (Lebois v. Bulgaria, §§ 61 and 64; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, § 36). In practice, consideration should be given to the fact that prisoners have to share a limited number of telephones (Bădulescu v. Portugal, on limited duration of the daily phone calls, §§ 35 and 36) and that the authorities have to prevent disorder and crime (Daniliuc v. Romania (dec.); see also Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), as regards the charges for telephone calls made from prison). 549. Prohibiting a prisoner from using the prison telephone booth for a certain period to call his partner of four years, with whom he had a child, on the grounds that they were not married was found to breach Articles 8 and 14 taken together (Petrov v. Bulgaria, § 54). 550. In a high security prison, the storage of the numbers that a prisoner wished to call – a measure of which he had been notified – was considered necessary for security reasons and to avoid the commission of further offences (the prisoner had other ways of remaining in contact with his relatives, such as letters and visits) (Coşcodar v. Romania (dec.), § 30 – see also in an ordinary prison, Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 3), §§ 114-117).
European Court of Human Rights
121/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
