Communicated on 7 May 2020
Published on 2 June 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 70777/12
Valeriy Viktorovich VASILENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 12 October 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. The case concerns the alleged routine monitoring of his correspondence with prosecution authorities, the Ombudsman and the Court during his detention in the Gorodyshche prison between 18 October 2004 and 8 June 2010, even though that type of correspondence was exempt from monitoring under the applicable legal provisions. In February 2011 the Rivne Regional Prosecutor’s Office carried out investigation into the applicant’s complaint in that regard and concluded that, indeed, the prison administration had not been respecting the legal prohibition on monitoring of the above-mentioned type of prisoners’ correspondence. In April 2011 the prosecutor informed the applicant that the staff members concerned had been disciplined. The applicant initiated administrative proceedings against the prison administration seeking that the monitoring of his correspondence be declared unlawful and claiming compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in that regard. On 28 October 2011 and 20 March 2012 the Vinnytsya Circuit Administrative Court and the Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal, respectively, rejected his claim. On 21 May 2012 the Higher Administrative Court refused to exempt the applicant from court fees and returned his appeal on points of law unexamined. It considered the applicant’s allegation that he could not afford paying the court fees to be unsubstantiated, without commenting on his reference to the lower courts’ decisions exempting him from court fees on the grounds of his having no income.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant’s right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been breached on account of the Higher Administrative Court’s refusal to exempt him from court fees on the grounds that he had failed to substantiate his statement of the absence of any income, whereas such statement had been found substantiated by the lower courts?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged routine monitoring of his correspondence with prosecution authorities, the Ombudsman and the Court during his detention in the Gorodyshche prison from 18 October 2004 to 8 June 2010? If so, was the interference compatible with the guarantees of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Has there been any hindrance by the State to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s communication with the Court monitored by the Gorodyshche prison administration?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy