FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 57248/00
by Mueen CHISHTI
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 July 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
andMr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 5 August 1999 and registered on 15 May 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mueen Chishti, is an Unites States national of Pakistani origin, born in 1958 and residing in Montclair, California (USA).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings
On 19 December 1995, the applicant was arrested in Portugal. He was suspected, with 11 other persons, of fraud, consisting in encoding information of credit cards, belonging to other people, on the magnetic bands of blank plastic cards using a personal computer and an encoding/decoding device. These plastic cards were then used at P.O.S. (“point of sale”) terminals, with the collaboration of their owners, to draw sums to be paid by the banks in question.
On the following day, after being heard by the judge of the Lisbon Criminal Investigation Court in the presence of an officially assigned lawyer, the applicant was put on detention on remand.
On 26 July 1996, the public prosecutor made his submissions against the applicant and 11 other people. These were served on the applicant and his newly constituted lawyer in Portuguese only.
On 11 November 1997, the Lisbon Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to seventeen years’ imprisonment for computer fraud (burla informática), falsification of credit cards and corruption.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) complaining, inter alia, of a violation of his rights of defence.
In a judgment of 4 June 1998, served on the applicant on 8 June 1998, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal against conviction. It however reduced the sentence of the applicant to fourteen years ‘imprisonment.
Some of the defendants, but not the applicant, appealed to the Constitutional Court. According to the applicant, the Constitutional Court gave its judgment in October 1999.
2. The applicant’s detention and transfer to the United States
During his detention in Portugal, in the prison of Pinheiro da Cruz, the applicant was unable to correspond with his family in Urdu (Pakistani) since April 1998. According to the applicant, he registered his name twice to complain about this ban to the prison’s judge (juíz de execução de penas) but he never had a reply. A new prison director, appointed at the end of 1999, would also have verbally refused to authorise the applicant to correspond in Urdu.
On 6 December 2000, the applicant was transferred to the United States to serve the remainder of his sentence.
On 15 March 2001 the applicant was released on bail.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The execution of prison sentences is regulated by the Decree Law No 265/79 of 1 August 1979.
Section 43 of this Decree Law provides, in its paragraph 1, that the prison director can order the stopping of a prisoner’s outgoing and incoming mail if written in an unknown foreign language and without special reasons justifying the use of such language. The letters in question are filed in the individual file of the person concerned.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair.
He also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, of the impossibility to correspond with his family living in Pakistan in Urdu, the only language that they understand.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.
However, the Court cannot examine this complaint. The Court notes that the application was lodged on 5 August 1999 and that the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was given by the Supreme Court on 4 June 1998 and served on the applicant on 8 June 1998 and thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted to the Court. It follows that this part of the application has been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2. The applicant complains of the impossibility to correspond in Urdu with his family living in Pakistan. He invokes Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the restrictions on his correspondence ;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy