Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 108
May 2008
Petrov v. Bulgaria - 15197/02
Judgment 22.5.2008 [Section V]
Article 14
Discrimination
Prisoner’s inability to make telephone calls to his partner because they were not married: violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for correspondence
Systematic monitoring of the entirety of a prisoner’s correspondence: violation
Facts: Between 2001 and 2003 the applicant served a prison sentence at Lovech Prison. During his stay, he was not allowed to send correspondence in sealed envelopes to the lawyer representing him in pending domestic proceedings and before the Court. His letters were systematically opened and checked by the prison authorities. Furthermore, while married inmates had the right to call their spouses from a private telephone booth twice a month, he was barred for a period of time from making calls to the mother of his child with whom he had been living for about four years on account of the fact that they were not married.
Law: Article 8 – The applicant complained about the monitoring of his correspondence, including with his lawyer. The monitoring was based on domestic law, which provided that the entirety of the prisoners’ correspondence was to be screened, without distinguishing between different categories of correspondents. Moreover, the statutory provisions did not lay down any rules governing the implementation of such monitoring nor were the domestic authorities required to give reasons. Despite the existence of a certain margin of appreciation in this domain, and in the absence of any arguments by the authorities as to the indispensable nature of such a measure, the monitoring of the entirety of the applicant’s correspondence did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 – The applicant also complained that, unlike married prisoners, he was not allowed to call his life-partner from the prison telephone. Notwithstanding the differences in legal status of married couples, as well the general acceptance of the institution of marriage, the applicant and his partner were in a long-term relationship and had a child together. His situation was therefore substantially the same as that of married inmates. However, neither the domestic authorities nor the Government had advanced objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment of the applicant compared to married inmates. Despite the State’s margin of appreciation, the Court did not consider it acceptable that married and unmarried prisoners with an established family life should receive such disparate treatment in terms of maintaining family ties while in custody.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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