FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)
(Application no. 35673/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maslák v. Slovakia (No. 3),
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 35673/18) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 July 2018 by a Slovak national, Mr Miroslav Maslák (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979, lives in Pružina and was represented by Mr R. Toman, a lawyer practising in Nové Zámky;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the confiscation of the applicant’s letter by the prison administration, lack of access to a court and lack of effective remedies to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the seizure of a letter addressed by the applicant, who is serving a prison sentence, to another prisoner. The letter was withheld by the prison administration on the ground of its defamatory content.
2. Between 15 July and 1 December 2016 the applicant was serving part of a custodial sentence in Ilava Prison.
3. On 7 November 2016 the applicant wrote a letter to another prisoner detained in a different prison, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“... I am fulfilling my civic duty and even if I live in fear that some silly guys full of complexes will come to beat me up too, I will not be intimidated ...”
4. The letter was confiscated by the prison authorities pursuant to section 25(2) and (4) of Law no. 475/2005 Coll. on the execution of prison sentences (“the EPS Act”), which provided that the prison authorities could seize correspondence if it contained defamatory information. The applicant was informed of the seizure on the same day and immediately complained to the prosecutor about the confiscation of his letter.
5. On 28 December 2016 the prosecutor of the Trenčín regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the prison authorities’ actions had been lawful and justified as the correspondence contained a defamatory statement, namely “some silly guys full of complexes”.
6. On 1 April 2017 the applicant challenged the above decision before the Prosecutor General of the Slovak Republic, who dismissed his complaint on 12 June 2017.
7. The applicant lodged both a complaint with the administrative courts and a separate complaint with the Constitutional Court.
8. On 31 August 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the latter complaint as premature, given that the administrative complaint was still pending.
9. On 14 September 2017 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings relating to the administrative complaint owing to lack of jurisdiction, holding that the matter should be dealt with by the prosecutor’s office and that the applicant was also free to lodge a complaint with a court of general jurisdiction outside the administrative framework.
10. On 31 October 2017 the applicant lodged a second complaint with the Constitutional Court, which on 15 February 2018 dismissed the complaint as ill-founded.
11. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the unjustified and arbitrary interference with his right to respect for correspondence, the lack of access to court and the lack of effective remedies.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
13. The general principles concerning the rights of prisoners to respect for their correspondence have been summarised in Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 15197/02, §§ 43-44, 22 May 2008), and Buglov v. Ukraine (no 28825/02, § 135, 10 July 2014).
14. The Court considers that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable to the facts of the present case. In addition, the confiscation of the letter constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 84, Series A no. 61). The interference in question pursued one or more of the legitimate aims envisaged by the second paragraph of Article 8 (see, for example, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 44, Series A no. 227), specifically, ensuring “the protection of the rights ... of others” and “the prevention of ... crime”. It remains to be ascertained whether the interference was “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”.
15. As regards the lawfulness requirement, the grounds for seizure of correspondence were provided for by section 25(2) of the EPS Act and the applicant’s complaint concerned the legal definition of a particular ground for confiscating a letter written by him (contents of defamatory nature), and the authorities’ interpretation and application of that ground. The Court reiterates that it is impossible to attain absolute certainty in the framing of the law, and the likely outcome of any search for certainty would be excessive rigidity (see Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V). The Court is prepared to accept that the wording of the EPS Act was sufficiently foreseeable in its application. The question, however, arises as to whether the authorities complied with the requirement of proportionality when applying the law to the applicant’s situation.
16. To determine whether this was the case, regard must be had to the normal and reasonable requirements of detention. Some measure of control over the correspondence of persons who have been deprived of their liberty is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Silver and Others, cited above, § 98, and D.L. v. Bulgaria, no. 7472/14, § 103, 19 May 2016).
17. In the present case, the authorities referred to a “defamatory” remark (“some silly guys full of complexes”) as the ground for the confiscation of the letter. However, neither the text of the letter nor the context in which the remark had been written were reproduced or analysed in the authorities’ decisions (see Pfeifer and Plankl, cited above, § 47). It seems that the offending passage referred to prison staff and to their behaviour. The expression used was insulting rather than defamatory, it was not a particularly strong one and was part of a private letter addressed to another private person. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to challenge before the prosecutor and the courts the decision to confiscate the letter. However, the reasoning provided by the domestic authorities was very short and did not contain any explanation of why the relevant parts of the letter were “defamatory”, and there was no sufficiently detailed analysis of the situation which could justify the restriction of the applicant’s right to respect for correspondence.
18. Where measures interfering with prisoners’ correspondence are taken, it is essential that reasons be given for the interference so that the individual can be satisfied that the law has been correctly applied and that decisions taken in his or her case are not unreasonable or arbitrary (see Onoufriou v. Cyprus, no. 24407/04, § 113, 7 January 2010). In the present case, the authorities failed to provide “relevant and sufficient reasons” for the interference in question. Therefore, the confiscation of the applicant’s correspondence was not “necessary in a democratic society” in the circumstances.
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
OTHER COMPLAINTS20. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of a lack of access to a court and of effective remedies. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above regarding the relevant national review mechanism (see paragraph 17), the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 129-30 and 202, 31 March 2022).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 968 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
22. The Government submitted that his claims were excessive.
23. The Court awards the applicant EUR 2,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
24. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 968 covering costs and expenses under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 968 (nine hundred and sixty-eight euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President