BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF ČIAPAS v. LITHUANIA
(Application
no. 4902/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
November 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Čiapas v. Lithuania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr J. Hedigan, appointed to sit in respect
of Lithuania,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 4902/02) against the Republic
of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Rolandas Čiapas
(“the applicant”), on 31 July 2001.
- The
Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the censorship of his
correspondence with private persons at the Šiauliai Remand
Prison during the period from 19 November 2001 to 1 April 2003 had
breached Article 8 of the Convention.
- By
a decision of 24 November 2005 the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1966.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- On
13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested in the context of
criminal proceedings for robbery and blackmail. His detention was
subsequently authorised and extended by a court.
- On
19 November 2001 a prosecutor adopted
a decision to censor (cenzūruoti) the applicant's letters
in accordance with Article 15 of the Detention on Remand Act. In
order to justify the decision, the prosecutor referred to the danger
that the applicant might attempt to influence witnesses and victims
of the criminal proceedings.
- On
22 April 2002 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the
applicant of robbery and blackmail. The final decision in this regard
was taken by the Supreme Court on 24 December 2002.
11. A
further decision on the censorship of the applicant's
correspondence was taken by a prosecutor on 7 February 2003 on the
same grounds, in the context of another criminal case concerning a
fresh episode of alleged robbery and blackmail.
- On
1 April 2003 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the censorship in
that the investigation had been concluded.
13. For
most of the above period the applicant was held at the Šiauliai
Remand Prison - with certain interruptions due to his temporary
transfers to other prisons. According to the Government, during the
period from
19 November 2001 to 1 April 2003, a total number of
121 letters received or sent by the applicant were censored at the
Šiauliai Remand Prison. 113 of these were received from or
addressed to the applicant's wife. The remaining 8 letters were
received from or addressed to: a) GB, a partner of the applicant's
co-suspect; b) SA, the applicant's co-suspect; c) KV, a detainee and
the applicant's acquaintance; d) AE and GG, the applicant's
acquaintances.
- On
1 September 2003 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the
applicant of a fresh episode of robbery and blackmail. The final
decision in this respect was taken by the Supreme Court on 24
February 2004.
- The
applicant was again convicted of another crime by the Šiauliai
Regional Court on 14 January 2005. He currently serves his sentence
at the Marijampolė Prison.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- Article
15 of the Detention on Remand Act:
“1. Letters sent or received by a remand prisoner,
except for cases stipulated in the second paragraph of this article,
may be subject to censorship (gali būti cenzūruojami).
2. Proposals, applications and complaints addressed to
the [State authorities] and the European Court of Human Rights shall
not be subject to censorship and shall be dispatched within one day
from their receipt.”
- Rule
90 of the Remand Centres Rules as approved by the order of the
Minister of Justice of 7 September 2001 provide that officers of the
remand prisons are not allowed, upon their own initiative, to censor
correspondence of the detainees without an appropriate decision taken
under Article 15 of the Detention on Remand Act.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
- The
Government stated that, in view of the amendments to the Code of
Criminal Procedure applicable since 17 April 2002, the applicant
could have applied to a court with a general complaint about any
decision of a prosecutor taken in the course of the pre-trial
investigation. As the applicant did not complain against the
prosecutor's decisions of 19 November 2001 and 7 February 2003 to
allow censorship of his correspondence, his complaints in this
respect should have been rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies.
- The
Court recalls its finding in the decision on admissibility in the
present case to the extent that the censorship of the applicant's
correspondence with private persons at the Šiauliai Remand
Prison from 19 November 2001 to 1 April 2003 had been authorised
in accordance with the applicable domestic provisions, and that hence
there had been no requirement for the applicant to exhaust domestic
remedies in this connection. Furthermore, the Government has not
shown the existence of an effective recourse to a court during the
impugned period - in theory or in practice - in relation to these
complaints (see, Valašinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no.
44558/98, 14 March 2000); also see, by contrast, Jankauskas
v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 59304/00, 16 December 2003).
- The
Government's preliminary objection must therefore be rejected.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the censorship of his correspondence with
private persons at the Šiauliai Remand Prison from
19
November 2001 to 1 April 2003. He alleged a violation of Article 8 of
the Convention, which provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home 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.”
- The
Government argued that the censorship of the applicant's letters
related only to his correspondence with private persons, the
censorship being allowed by the valid decisions of a prosecutor in
accordance with the applicable domestic law. The decisions had been
taken in order to protect the witnesses and victims in a number of
sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, and as such the
censorship had been justified by the second paragraph of Article 8 of
the Convention.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments, stating that the
undiscriminating censorship of all his correspondence with his family
and acquaintances had breached Article 8 of the Convention.
- The
Court finds it established that during the period from
19
November 2001 until 1 April 2003 the administration of the Šiauliai
Remand Prison censored 121 letters received by or addressed to the
applicant, most or that correspondence being with his wife (see
paragraph 13 above). While neither the Government nor the applicant
have specified a particular form of that censorship, it appears that
the aforementioned letters were, at least, opened up and read in the
applicant's absence, to be later put and classified in his prison
file (also see the Court's judgment of
24 February 2005 in the
Jankauskas v. Lithuania case cited above, § 20). There
was thus an interference with the applicant's right to respect for
his correspondence under Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Convention,
which can only be justified if the conditions of the second paragraph
of the provision are met. In particular, such interference must be
“in accordance with the law”, pursue a legitimate aim and
be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim
(see the Court's judgment of 24 July 2001 in the Valašinas
case cited above, ECHR 2001-VIII, § 128).
- It
is uncontested that the interference in the present case had a legal
basis, namely the provisions of Article 15 of the Detention on Remand
Act, and the Court is satisfied that it pursued the legitimate aim of
“the prevention of disorder or crime”. As regards the
necessity of the interference, it is to be noted that the censorship
was carried out at the stage of pre-trial investigation in the
context of two sets of criminal proceedings for robbery and
blackmail. While certain forms of censorship of some letters to or
from the applicant's acquaintances - especially his correspondence
with previous convicts or persons of dangerous character - may have
been justified in order to protect the witnesses or victims in the
impugned criminal cases, censorship of other private correspondence -
especially that with his wife - may have unjustly divulged certain
elements of his personal or family life. The interference that
occurred in the present case may have thus been justified, but
required a more specific justification (cf., mutatis mutandis,
Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March
1983, Series A no. 61, §§ 99-105). However, the Government
have not explained why the control of the 121 letters was
indispensable. Indeed, even the form of censorship as allowed by the
decisions of the prosecutor of 19 November 2001 and 7 February 2003
(see paragraphs 9 and 11 above) - be it opening up, reading,
stopping, withholding or another form of control - was not specified,
effectively amounting to a carte blanche for the authorities
to have an excessive hold on the applicant's communication with the
outside world (cf., mutatis mutandis, the Jankauskas
judgment cited above, §§ 21-23). The Court further recalls
its case-law requiring certain qualities in such laws as are here
concerned (cf., inter alia, Calogero Diana v. Italy,
judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1996-V, p. 1775, §§ 32-33; Domenichini v. Italy,
judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, §§
29-33; Petra v. Romania, judgment of 3 September 1998, Reports
1998-VII, §§ 37-40). Specifically it notes the need for the
national law authorising such measures to be drafted with precision,
and for regular review of censorship orders as to their nature and
length. The Court notes the lack of such statutory provisions herein.
- There
has consequently been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
-
The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the applicant's claims exorbitant.
- The
Court considers that the applicant suffered certain
non-pecuniary
damage in view of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see,
for example, the above mentioned Valašinas (§ 141)
and Jankauskas (§ 28) judgments). Making its assessment
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,000 under
this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any request for reimbursement of legal
costs, and the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
8 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 November 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
