FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27507/95
by M.C.
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 January 1995 and registered on 2 June 1995,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the Commission’s partial decision of 2 July 1997,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1962. He is presently detained in the Racibórz prison. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr Wieńczysław Grzyb, a lawyer practising in Żywiec (Poland).
A.The circumstances of the case
1.The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant.
On 29 February 1996 the applicant, who was at that time detained in the Wadowice prison, complained to the Wadowice District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) that the prison authorities had distributed pornography on the prison cable television and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the Governor of Wadowice Prison. Subsequently, the prosecution service investigated the applicant’s complaint.
On 19 March 1996 the prison officers seized a television set and a video cassette player belonging to the applicant. They informed him that he would soon be transferred to another cell in which there was already a television set and that therefore he would not need his own.
On 23 March 1996 the applicant was transferred to a cell in which a certain Mr J.B. was detained. In the meantime, the prison officers had allegedly informed other prisoners that he had been convicted of sexual offences against children and that his complaint to the Wadowice District Prosecutor about distribution of pornography had resulted in restrictions on the other prisoners’ access to films and television programmes. This led to a hostile attitude of inmates to the applicant. As from 23 March 1996 the applicant’s inmate beat, kicked and insulted him. On 8 April 1996 a fight broke out between the two of them. It resulted in injuries to the applicant’s head, a broken nose and bruises on his body. During the incident, three or four warders opened the cell door and laughed but they did not intervene. On 9 April 1996 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor.
The applicant was subjected to regular body searches, the so-called "nude checks", before and after all of his frequent visits to the prison infirmary, any exercise in the open air and any contact with his family.
On 23 April 1996 two prison officers, i.e. lieutenants P.C. and M.B., searched the applicant's cell in the presence of the applicant and his inmate, Mr W.L. The officers seized three of the applicant's letters containing his complaints addressed to the Wadowice District Prosecutor, the Helsinki Committee of Human Rights and the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. They also took away photographs of the applicant's family and his diary.
On 24 April 1996 the Governor of Wadowice Prison punished the applicant under the disciplinary rules with a deprivation of contacts with his family for a period of three months.
On 23 June 1996 the applicant was beaten.
On 26 June 1996 the applicant was manhandled during the roll-call by the prison officers W.J. and S.B. In particular, he was beaten up, kicked and dragged to a cell where he was kept in solitary confinement. Subsequently, the applicant was examined by a prison doctor and X-ray photographs were taken on three occasions since he was suffering from head injuries.
On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Wadowice District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the persons who had beaten him up on 26 June 1996. On 27 September 1996 the Wadowice District Prosecutor dismissed his request. On 25 November 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the District Prosecutor.
In the meantime, on 30 August 1996 the prison officers left the applicant’s personal effects, including his correspondence, unattended in his cell when he was placed in solitary confinement, and as a result his inmates destroyed and stole them. On 31 August 1996 the warders incited other prisoners to assault the applicant.
2.The facts of the case, as submitted by the Government.
The applicant was detained in the Wadowice prison between 13 December 1995 and 12 December 1996.
On 18 March 1996 the applicant filed with the Wadowice District Prosecutor a complaint about a violation of his right to respect for his correspondence by the prison officers who on 13 March 1996 had searched his cell and had seized his correspondence. Subsequently, he extended his complaint to another seizure of his correspondence at the end of March 1996.
On 19 March 1996 the applicant was transferred from a three-person cell to a cell which he shared with seven other inmates. The transfer was necessary for organisational and educational reasons. In this connection, the Government refer to the prison records concerning the transfer. A report written on 19 March 1996 by a prison officer Mr J.K. specifies that the applicant dominated other inmates in the small cell and annoyed them. The applicant’s behaviour towards an inmate Mr R. resulted in his nervous breakdown. The report concludes that a transfer would help the applicant’s social adaptation. The applicant’s television set and a video cassette player where deposited with the prison authorities at the time of his transfer. On 26 March 1996 the applicant requested the Governor that his electronic equipment be returned to him. However, his request was declined, as there was already a television set in a cell in which he stayed.
On 8 April 1996 the prison officers used physical force to place the applicant in solitary confinement. These measures were used in response to the applicant’s behaviour. In particular, he assaulted an inmate Mr J.B., destroyed furniture and television and radio sets and incited other inmates to start a riot. The Government refer to the prison records, which include detailed description of the incident. They confirm that the applicant remained in solitary confinement from 1.00 p.m. on 8 April 1996 to 9.30 a.m. on 9 April 1996. During that time his cell was inspected on twelve occasions. Furthermore, the Government refer to the applicant’s medical records and point out that he had undergone medical examinations at the time of his placement in solitary confinement and after his release. They are of the view that the results of those examinations show that the applicant’s allegations are unsubstantiated.
Subsequently, the applicant was punished with a one-month detention in solitary confinement for the disciplinary offence committed on 8 April 1996. However, the punishment was not carried out for health reasons and on 23 April 1996 the Governor changed it to the deprivation of contacts with his family for three months.
On 23 April 1996 the applicant’s cell was searched by prison officers. The search was carried out because the prison authorities suspected that the applicant illegally mailed correspondence including child pornography. The officers seized the applicant’s correspondence and certain personal effects. Subsequently, the seized property was sent to the Wadowice District Prosecutor. In addition, the prison service informed the Penitentiary Section of the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) of the measures taken against the applicant.
On 17 May 1996 the Wadowice District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 18 March 1996 concerning the alleged breach of his right to respect for his correspondence. He pointed out, inter alia, that the prison administration had been informed that the applicant had been collecting pornographic materials and had been corresponding to expand his collection. Under § 10 (4) of the Prison Rules, the prison administration had been obliged to pass to the prosecution service materials seized from the applicant which appeared to it to point towards the commission of a criminal offence. Accordingly, the correspondence taken from the applicant had been submitted to the prosecuting authorities. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor.
On 20 May 1996 the Wadowice District Prosecutor informed the Governor of the Wadowice prison that he did not intend to prosecute the applicant for the distribution of pornography and returned the belongings seized from the applicant. On the same day they were given back to him.
On 23 June 1996 there was not any beating of an inmate in the Wadowice prison. In that respect, the Government rely on the following documents: the service record of the chief duty prison officer, the service record of the ward prison officer, the applicant’s health record and the list of inmates interviewed by the Governor. In addition, the Government point out that on 26 June 1996 the applicant was subjected to a medical examination. The doctor, who examined him on that occasion, did not find any signs of physical abuse. Moreover, the applicant did not complain to him that he was beaten.
On 26 June 1996 the prison officers used physical force to place the applicant in solitary confinement. Their action resulted from the aggressive behaviour of the applicant who insulted them and assaulted the chief duty prison officer with a window frame. The applicant stayed in solitary confinement between 8.05 p.m. on 26 June 1996 and 9.30 a.m. on 27 June 1996. On 27 June 1997 he was examined by a doctor, who found lumps, contusions and abrasions. In the doctor’s opinion they were consistent with the use of physical force against the applicant and his behaviour during the incident.
On 31 July 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Wadowice District Prosecutor’s decision of 17 May 1996 dismissing his complaint about the alleged violation of his right to respect for his correspondence. The Regional Prosecutor considered that prison officers had acted lawfully. The applicant’s hand written notes and correspondence seized by the officers had been transmitted to the prosecution service, as they appeared to constitute evidence pointing towards the commission of a criminal offence by the applicant. In this connection, the Government aver that the applicant sent letters addressed to several institutions in which he inserted correspondence to private individuals together with instructions how to mail it to them. He therefore abused § 31 (1) of the Prison Rules.
On 26 August 1996 the applicant requested the Wadowice District Prosecutor to prosecute the Governor of the Wadowice prison and certain other prison officers from that facility for his moral and physical ill-treatment.
On 30 August 1996 the applicant refused to submit to a search and started to destroy furniture. He also threatened that he would assault other prisoners and hurt himself with a piece of glass he held in his hand. The prison officers overpowered the applicant and escorted him to solitary confinement, where he stayed from 7.20 p.m. on 30 August 1996 to 7.10 p.m. on 31 August 1996. However, shortly after his release from solitary confinement, the applicant again started to destroy furniture and assaulted the prison officers with a chair. In addition, he was calling other inmates to start a riot. Therefore, the warders used physical force to place the applicant in solitary confinement, where he stayed between 7.50 p.m. on 31 August 1996 and 12.45 p.m. on 1 September 1996.
On 4 September 1996 the applicant complained to the prison authorities that his personal effects had been lost when he had been placed in solitary confinement. The investigation of the complaint showed that on 30 August 1996, when the applicant had been taken to solitary confinement, the chief duty prison officer had made the inventory of his personal effects, including his correspondence, and had deposited them with the prison administration. They were returned to the applicant when he was released from solitary confinement.
On 27 September 1996 the Wadowice District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request of 26 August 1996 that certain prison officers be prosecuted for his alleged ill-treatment. On 25 November 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. The Regional Prosecutor considered that the evidence taken from the applicant’s inmates and warders showed that his allegations were unsubstantiated.
Relevant domestic law
1.Under the 1975 Resolution of the Minister of Justice, as applicable at the material time, special security measures which can be used against a prisoner include, inter alia, a placement in solitary confinement, handcuffing and the use of a chemical irritant spray. They can be used if a prisoner assaults another person or tries to hurt himself, calls other inmates to start a riot or to escape, breaches the peace or destroys the prison property.
2.The medical records concerning the treatment of a prisoner in the course of his detention are kept in the prison archives. Any injury sustained by a prisoner in prison must be recorded in his files.
3.According to § 10 of the 1989 Prison Rules, as applicable at the material time, prisoners can be subjected to a search. It may include an inspection of clothing, underwear, shoes, a cell as well as objects passed between a prisoner and other individuals. The search may take place at any time. Notes and other written material shall be submitted to a prosecutor if their content suggests that an offence has been committed.
4.Under § 31 (1) of the 1989 Prison Rules the censorship of a prisoner’s correspondence is permitted, except for correspondence with public institutions, including courts and prosecutors, the Ombudsman and the international institutions for the protection of human rights established by the treaties to which Poland is a contracting party.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 19 January 1995 before the European Commission of Human Rights and registered on 2 June 1995.
On 2 July 1997 the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatment by prison officers and their failure to protect him from assault as well as the seizure of the applicant’s correspondence and belongings, and the restrictions on the applicant’s contacts with his family. The Commission declared inadmissible his remaining complaints.
On 11 December 1997 the Government submitted their observations on the application, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 7 February and 12 May 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant raises the following complaints relating to his detention in the Wadowice prison:
(i)that the authorities failed to protect him sufficiently against the assault by an inmate on 8 April 1996 and that he was beaten on 23 June 1996;
(ii)that on 26 June 1996 the prison officers brutally assaulted him and placed him in solitary confinement and that on 31 August 1996 they incited other prisoners to assault him;
(iii)that the prison authorities informed other prisoners about the nature of his conviction and his complaint concerning the distribution of pornography in prison, in order to create in the prison community a hostile attitude towards the applicant;
(iv)that he was repeatedly subjected to degrading body searches;
(v)that the prison authorities on numerous occasions, including 23 April 1996, seized his belongings and refused to give them back to him; that on 30 August 1996 the prison officers left his belongings unattended in his cell when he was placed in solitary confinement, and as a result his inmates destroyed and stole them;
(vi)that the deprivation of contacts with his family for a period of three months was inhuman and disproportionate, in particular in view of the fact that the prisoner who had assaulted him was not subjected to any severe measures;
(vii)that the prison officers opened his letters addressed to public institutions in which he complained about the prison administration; that on 23 April 1996 the prison authorities seized his correspondence; that on 30 August 1996 the prison authorities left his correspondence unattended in his cell when he was placed in solitary confinement, and as a result his inmates destroyed and stole it.
The applicant also appears to request the Court to order domestic authorities to initiate court proceedings concerning his complaints and to change domestic legislation.
THE LAW
1.The applicant raises several complaints, listed above under (i) to (v), in which he alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison authorities. The Court considers that these complaints fall under Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government invite the Court to declare the applicant’s complaints inadmissible on the ground that they are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. They submit that the applicant’s medical records and the prison records concerning his placement and detention in solitary confinement show that his allegations are unsubstantiated. In this connection, the Government reiterate that on 8 April 1996 the applicant assaulted his inmate and that on 23 June 1996 there was not any beating in the Wadowice prison. On 26 June 1996 he insulted the warders and assaulted the chief duty prison officer with a window frame. In addition, on 30 August 1996 the applicant threatened that he would assault other prisoners and hurt himself with a piece of glass, whereas on the following day he assaulted the prison officers with a chair. Moreover, during those incidents he destroyed furniture and electronic equipment and called other prisoners to start a riot. Those circumstances justified the actions of the prison officers who placed the applicant in solitary confinement. Also, the measures taken against the applicant were based on the provisions of the 1975 Resolution of the Minister of Justice which at the relevant time regulated the use of special security measures in prisons.
The Government further submit that during the applicant’s detention in solitary confinement his condition was continuously monitored, as his cell was on numerous occasions inspected by the prison officers. They also point out that the investigation of the applicant’s complaints carried out by the prosecution service showed that before 26 August 1996 the applicant had not been assaulted by either warders or prisoners in the Wadowice prison. Furthermore, the Government argue that the applicant is a person with quarrelsome and aggressive disposition. In that regard, they point out that on two occasions the applicant was convicted of assaulting prison officers and prisoners.
The applicant argues that he was subjected to ill-treatment. He claims that his transfer to the eight-person cell was meant to annoy him. The prison officers informed his inmates about the nature of his conviction and about his complaint concerning the distribution of pornographic films on the prison cable television. In addition, the applicant was transferred to cells in which there were black and white television sets larger than 16 inches, i.e. not allowed by the prison rules, whereas a set taken away from him for a period of six months was a 14-inch colour television. As to his conviction for assaulting another prisoner, the applicant submits that he was not guilty of that offence but was a victim of the assault. His conviction resulted from the collusion of witnesses and unfair trial. Furthermore, he claims that he did not call other inmates to start a riot since they had a hostile attitude towards him.
The applicant further contends that, contrary to the Government’s submission, he was beaten on 23 June 1996. In this connection, he argues that prison doctors are not independent of the prison authorities and most of prison nurses are married to prison officers. Only medical examinations carried out by the public health service emergency teams would confirm injuries sustained by prisoners. However, the prison administration requests the assistance of such teams only on weekends, when the prison medical staff does not work.
With respect to the incident which took place on 26 June 1996, the applicant submits that the chief duty prison officer, who in his view was either intoxicated or had taken psychotropic medicine, insulted him. The applicant also seems to argue that the refusal of the prosecution service to lay charges against that officer was unjustified. Furthermore, he contests the Government’s account of the incidents which took place on 30 and 31 August 1996. In particular, the applicant avers that on the latter date the prison officers incited his inmates to assault him.
The applicant also disagrees with the Government’s submission that the investigation of his complaint of 4 September 1996 concerning the loss of his personal effects showed that it was unsubstantiated. He contends that when he was placed in solitary confinement his property was left in his cell and his inmates stole his stamps and 20 zlotys and destroyed his letters and photographs. Moreover, the applicant argues that the refusal of the prosecution service to institute criminal proceedings against the prison officers who ill-treated him resulted from the collusion in the criminal justice system. Finally, the applicant submits that he should not be placed in a cell without any monitoring of his condition, as he suffers from epilepsy.
The Court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst other authorities, the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, § 52). Also, there remains the State's obligation to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements employed with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Bonnechaux v. Switzerland, Eur. Comm. HR, Report 5.12.1979, D.R. 18, pp. 100 and 148). In addition, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, 29.7.99, §99, unreported).
Furthermore, the Court recalls that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of facts (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, 6.4.2000, § 121, unreported).
In the present case, the applicant firstly complains that on 8 April 1996 the prison authorities failed to protect him from the assault by his inmate, that he was beaten on 23 June 1996 and that on 26 June 1996 he was brutally assaulted by the prison officers. However, the Court observes that the applicant has failed to submit any evidence in support of his allegations. What is more, the prison and medical records provided by the Government contradict the applicant’s claims. They confirm that on 8 April 1996 the applicant was placed in solitary confinement after he had assaulted his inmate Mr J.B., destroyed furniture and called other prisoners to start a riot. The physical force was used after the applicant had failed to react to a verbal warning emitted by the chief duty prison officer. His cell was monitored on numerous occasions. In addition, the records of two medical examinations performed at 1.30 p.m. on 8 April 1996 and at 3.30 p.m. on 9 April 1996 show that the applicant suffered only slight injuries.
Furthermore, the prison and medical records confirm that the applicant was not beaten on 23 June 1996 and that he did not complain about it to the doctor who examined him on 26 June 1996. In addition, the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement on 26 June 1996 resulted from his aggressive behaviour and was preceded by a verbal warning. The medical records confirm that the doctor, who examined the applicant on 27 June 1996, concluded that he suffered slight injuries, which resulted from his placement in solitary confinement. The applicant has not challenged the integrity of any of the individual doctors who examined him but has instead made general allegations about the lack of independence of the prison medical staff and the collusion between the prison authorities and the criminal justice system.
With respect to the events which took place on 30 and 31 August 1996 the applicant appears to complain that on the latter date the prison officers incited his inmates to assault him. However, the Court again notes that he has failed to provide any evidence supporting his claim and that the prison records furnished by the Government leave no doubts that the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement on that date resulted from his violent behaviour.
As to the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, namely that the prison authorities created in the prison community a hostile attitude towards the applicant, that he was subjected to degrading body searches, that the prison authorities on numerous occasions seized his personal belongings and refused to return them to him, and that on 30 August 1996 the prison officers left his belongings unattended in his cell when he was placed in solitary confinement and as a result his inmates destroyed and stole them, the Court considers that he has failed to submit any evidence supporting his allegations.
In sum, while recognising that it may prove difficult for prisoners to obtain evidence of ill-treatment by their prison officers, the Court finds in the circumstances of the present case that the material it has before it regarding the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention does not disclose any appearance of a violation of that provision. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2.The applicant further complains about the deprivation of contacts with his family for a period of three months and the interference with his correspondence. The Court considers that these complaints fall under Article 8 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his […] family life, […] and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
a)The Government submit that the applicant was deprived of contacts with his family for a period of three months after the prison authorities had been advised that the punishment of a one-month detention in solitary confinement could not be enforced against the applicant for health reasons. The punishment resulted from the applicant’s serious disciplinary offence committed on 8 April 1996, when he assaulted his inmate, destroyed furniture and called other prisoners to start a riot. They contend that it was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant.
The applicant avers that the impugned measure was in breach of his rights guaranteed by the Convention.
The Court firstly finds that the deprivation of contacts with his family for a period of three months seems prima facie to have involved interference with the applicant’s family life. In addition, it notes that it appears to be common ground that the measure in question was “in accordance with law”. Hence, it remains for the Court to decide whether the deprivation of contacts with family was justified as “necessary in a democratic society” for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 8. In this connection, the Court recalls that the impugned restriction on the applicant’s contacts with his family was imposed on him because on 8 April 1996 he had assaulted his inmate, destroyed furniture and called other prisoners to start a riot. In the circumstances of the instant case the Court considers that, in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant, the authorities were entitled, within the margin of appreciation left to them under Article 8 § 2, to impose on the applicant the impugned measure “for the prevention of disorder or crime”.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
b)With respect to the applicant’s complaint about the interference with his correspondence, the Government submit that it is unsubstantiated. They refer to their account of the circumstances concerning the seizure of correspondence and point out that the applicant’s allegations were investigated by the Wadowice District Prosecutor, who on 17 May 1996 decided that they were unsubstantiated. The prosecutor was of the view that it had been necessary to seize the applicant’s correspondence and submit it to competent authorities in order to allow them to decide whether the applicant had committed criminal offences suspected by the prison administration. Furthermore, the Government argue that in August 1996 the applicant’s correspondence was seized together with his other personal effects when he was placed in solitary confinement, so that they were not left unprotected in a cell in which several other prisoners where detained. The measures applied by the authorities to the applicant’s correspondence complied with domestic regulations.
The applicant contests the Government’s submission that the prison service acted on the suspicion that his correspondence involved a criminal activity. Moreover, with reference to his complaint filed on 18 March 1996 with the Wadowice District Prosecutor, he submits that the prison officers breached domestic regulations because they opened his correspondence addressed to public institutions in which he complained about the distribution of pornography on the prison cable television. The applicant further argues that his belongings seized on 23 April 1996 were private letters and a videocassette, which contained “a professional film shot on a German nudist beach” and not pornographic materials. He points out that the cassette was subsequently returned to him by the police. Furthermore, the applicant argues that if the prison administration suspected that he was sending letters addressed to institutions in which he inserted correspondence to private individuals together with instructions how to mail it to them, the authorities had to open his letters beforehand in order to arrive at such suspicion. In addition, he points out that the fact that the prosecuting authorities did not charge him shows that the suspicion of the prison administration was unjustified.
The Court firstly considers, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the applicant has failed to submit any prima facie evidence in support of his claim that the prison officers opened his letters addressed to public institutions containing complaints against the prison administration.
Furthermore, the Court notes that it appears that on two occasions in March 1996 and on 23 April 1996 the prison officers searched the applicant’s cell and seized some of his personal effects, including correspondence. The prison authorities transmitted the seized materials to the prosecution service together with a request to investigate whether their nature could lead to the charges of distributing pornography. At the same time, the Penitentiary Court was advised about the measures taken against the applicant. Subsequently, the authorities returned to the applicant all correspondence and other personal effects seized from him. The applicant submits the arguments about the nature of the seized materials and the circumstances in which the prison administration could raise suspicion about his alleged correspondence concerning pornographic materials. However, it is not for the Court to speculate about these issues. It will subject the facts of the present case to the tests established in its case-law (see, among other authorities, the Calogero Diana v. Italy judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28, and the Domenichini v. Italy judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1799, § 28). Firstly, the Court notes that, quite obviously, the seizure of the applicant’s correspondence constituted “interference by a public authority”. In addition, it appears to be common ground that it was “in accordance with law”. The Court is satisfied that, in the circumstances of the present case, the prison administration could have had grounds to suspect that the nature of the applicant’s correspondence would result in his prosecution. Under the domestic legislation the prison administration was required to act on such suspicion and in particular to notify the prosecuting authorities. The subsequent decision of the prosecution service not to lay charges against the applicant does not change that assessment, as it was precisely the duty of the prosecuting authorities, and not the prison administration, to verify the evidence seized from the applicant and decide whether to press charges against him. It follows that the impugned interference was “necessary in a democratic society” “for the prevention of disorder or crime”.
Finally, the applicant complains that on 30 August 1996 the prison authorities left his correspondence unattended in his cell when he was placed in solitary confinement, and as a result his inmates destroyed and stole it. However, even assuming that this complaint could raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to submit any evidence in support of it.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3.The applicant also requests the Court to order domestic authorities to initiate court proceedings concerning his complaints and to change domestic legislation. However, it is not within the province of the Court to entertain such requests.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy