Information Note on the Court’s case-law 68
October 2004
Poleshchuk v. Russia - 60776/00
Judgment 7.10.2004 [Section I]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of application
Refusal to send a detainee’s letters of complaint to the Court: violation
Facts: The applicant, who is currently serving a prison sentence, submitted letters to the Court in May and December 1999 complaining of a lack of a fair trial in the proceedings which led to his conviction. On both occasions the prison authorities refused to dispatch the letters unless he previously filed his complaint with the domestic courts. After having unsuccessfully instituted actions with the domestic courts, the applicant succeeded in having his application sent to the Court in February 2000, in which he complained not only of an unfair trial but also that he had exceeded the six months time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention because he had been prevented by the prison authorities from dispatching the application earlier. Following a request of the Court to the Government under Rule 49 § 2 of the Rules of Court for additional information on the applicant’s allegations that the letters had not been dispatched, the authorities issued circular letters to penitentiary institutions requesting them to avoid hindering exercise of the right of individual petition by detainees. An inquiry into the refusal to post the applicant’s letters was conducted, but its results remain unknown to the Court. The applicant maintains that after his application was lodged he was subject to pressures and transferred to a stricter level of security.
Law: Article 34 – Concerning the refusal to post the applicant’s original letters to the Court: Government’s preliminary objection (victim status) – although the Government had expressly acknowledged a violation in their observations on admissibility and the merits and general measures had been taken to prevent violations of this kind in the future, such measures could not be accepted as redress which deprived the applicant of his victim status: objection dismissed.
Merits – As a result of the refusal on two occasions by the prison administration to post the applicant’s letters to the Court, his application had been delayed by more than eight months. This had constituted an interference with his right of individual petition, resulting in a failure of the respondent State to comply with its obligations under this provision.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Inadmissible under Article 34 (concerning the alleged pressure after the application had been lodged): The applicant’s allegation that there had been a connection between his application to the Court and the imposition of additional disciplinary penalties and sanctions on him was unsubstantiated: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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