The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the first report drawn up by the European Commission
of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the
convention relating to the application lodged by T. against the United
Kingdom (Application No. 8231/78);
Whereas, on 22 December 1983, the Commission transmitted the said
report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three
months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the
convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the
European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of
the convention;
Whereas, in his application introduced on 21 March 1977, the applicant
complained, inter alia, of certain restrictions on the exercise of his
freedom of expression while serving a sentence of imprisonment,
alleging a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application in part admissible on
6 March 1982 and in its report adopted on 12 October 1983 expressed
the opinion unanimously that the denial of access to writing paper to
the applicant and the complete prohibition on the applicant's sending
academic writings out of prison constituted a violation of Article 10
(art. 10) of the convention; by eleven votes to one with one
abstention that the restrictions on the applicant's receipt of books
were justified under the terms of Article 10, paragraph 2 (art. 10-2),
of the convention as necessary in a democratic society for the
prevention of disorder and that there was no violation of Article 10
(art. 10) of the convention; by ten votes to three that the
restrictions on the applicant's access to newspapers and periodicals
and in particular its restriction during disciplinary penalties
constituted a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the convention; by
twelve votes to one that the restrictions on the applicant's freedom
of expression which the possibility of scrutiny of his writings
represented were justified under Article 10, paragraph 2 (art. 10-2),
of the convention and that there was no violation of Article 10
(art. 10) of the convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;
Having examined the proposals made by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention;
Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Government of the
United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that changes had
been made to Prison Standing Orders in December 1984 in England and
Wales, in July 1985 in Scotland and in July 1986 in Northern Ireland
with a view to a relaxation of the regulations concerning prisoners'
access to writing materials and the dispatch of academic writings and
artistic materials out of prison, that such regulations were
accessible to prisoners since they were contained in published
Standing Orders, a copy of which was available on each wing for the
use of prisoners;
Noting with satisfaction the changes which have been made to Prison
Standing Orders;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention,
a. Decides that in this case
i. there has been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the
convention in relation to the denial of access to writing paper and
in relation to the complete prohibition on the applicant's sending
academic writings out of prison;
ii. there has not been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the
convention in relation to the restrictions on the applicant's receipt
of books;
iii. there has been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the
convention in relation to the restrictions on the applicant's access
to newspapers and periodicals and in particular its restriction during
disciplinary penalties;
iv. there has not been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the
convention in relation to the scrutiny of the applicant's writings;
b. Decides that no further action is called for in this case.