Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192
January 2016
Kalda v. Estonia - 17429/10
Judgment 19.1.2016 [Section II]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom to receive information
Restrictions placed on prisoner’s access to certain Internet sites containing legal information: violation
Facts – The applicant, a prisoner, complained that he was prevented from carrying out legal research as a result of being refused access to certain Internet sites. These included the website of the local Council of Europe Information Office and certain, but not all, State-run databases containing legislation and judicial decisions. In the appeal proceedings brought by the applicant, the Supreme Court concluded that granting access to Internet sites beyond those authorised by the prison authorities could increase the risk of prisoners engaging in prohibited communication, thus giving rise to a need for heightened levels of monitoring of their use of computers.
Law – Article 10: The question at issue was not the authorities’ refusal to release the requested information. Rather, the applicant’s complaint concerned a particular means of accessing – specifically, via the Internet – information published on certain websites that was freely available in the public domain.
Imprisonment inevitably involved a number of restrictions on prisoners’ communications with the outside world, including on their ability to receive information. Article 10 could not be interpreted as imposing a general obligation to provide access to the Internet, or to specific Internet sites, for prisoners. However, in the circumstances of the case, given that under the domestic law prisoners were granted limited access to the Internet – including access to the official databases of legislation and judicial decisions – the restriction of access to other sites that also contained legal information had constituted interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder and crime.
The websites to which the applicant had requested access predominantly contained legal information and information related to fundamental rights, including the rights of prisoners. The accessibility of such information promoted public awareness and respect for human rights. The national courts used such information and the applicant therefore also needed access to it for the protection of his rights in the court proceedings. When the applicant lodged his complaint with the domestic courts, Estonian language translations of the European Court’s judgments against the respondent State were only available on the website of the local Council of Europe Office to which he had been denied access.
In a number of Council of Europe and other international instruments Internet access had increasingly been understood as a right, and calls had been made to develop effective policies to attain universal access to the Internet and to overcome the “digital divide”. Moreover, an increasing amount of services and information was only available on the Internet.
Lastly, under the domestic law prisoners had been granted limited access to the Internet via computers specially adapted for that purpose and under the supervision of the prison authorities. The arrangements necessary for the use of the Internet by prisoners had thus already been made and the related costs had already been borne by the authorities. The domestic courts had not given due consideration to any possible security risks attendant on the applicant’s use of the websites in question, bearing in mind that they were run by the Council of Europe and by the State itself. Nor had it been demonstrated that giving the applicant access to three additional websites would have caused any noteworthy additional costs. In sum, while the security and economic considerations referred to by the domestic authorities might be considered relevant, they had not been sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
(See Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, 3111/10, 18 December 2012, Information Note 158)
© 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