Information Note on the Court’s case-law 236
January 2020
Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 3) - 41995/14 and 50276/15
Judgment 7.1.2020 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Temporary lack of access for prisoner to online communication with family members: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant served a prison sentence from 2009 to the end of 2016.
In February 2014 a law came into force that allowed inmates, under certain circumstances, to maintain contact with the outside world, particularly family members, through online communication. For security and practical reasons, the exercise of that right was subject to the prison authorities’ prior evaluation and approval.
The specific elements to be considered as regards approving and exercising that right were to be set out in an implementation regulation to be adopted within six months; it was eventually adopted in April 2016.
From April 2015 the applicant complained of the lack of implementation of the above-mentioned right, putting forward the argument that his wife could visit him only every three months because she lived some distance away, in Italy.
Relying on the provisions of the domestic law, the domestic courts accepted the existence of the said right and found that the lack of regulation allowing for the implementation of that right represented a continuous breach thereof.
Law – Article 8: This provision of the Convention could not be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to communicate with the outside world by way of online devices, particularly where facilities for contact via alternative ways were available and adequate (see, in a similar context concerning the right to telephone calls, Lebois v. Bulgaria, 67482/14, 19 October 2017, Information Note 211).
In the applicant’s case, access to this communication facility in order to maintain contact with his wife was a right provided for by domestic law.
Admittedly, there had been a delay of one year and eight months vis-à-vis the time-limit set out in the relevant provision of the domestic law for the implementation of that right. The right in issue had thus been restricted by the temporary absence of an adequate legal and infrastructural framework allowing him to communicate online. However, the Court noted that:
– this restriction had related to a relatively short period of time (April 2015, when the applicant had first complained before the post-sentencing judge in that respect, until April 2016 at the latest, when the implementation regulation was adopted);
– during that time the applicant’s wife had been able to visit him once every three months;
– nothing had prevented the applicant from maintaining meaningful contact with his wife via alternative means of communication.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Another complaint of the applicant, related to his conditions of detention, was examined on the merits. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first period under examination (with a EUR 3,000 award in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained in that connection), and no violation for the second period.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy