FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 58750/16 Tomas LIUTKEVIÄŒIUS against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 April 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Egidijus KÅ«ris, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2016,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Tomas Liutkevičius, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1981 and is currently detained in Germany.

2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms L. Urbait ė.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. In May 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court complaining about insufficient ward space in the Prison Hospital and about not being issued with razors. On 29 January 2016 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court awarded the applicant compensation of 500 euros (EUR) for the seventy-one days he had spent in overcrowded wards.

5 . On 20 January 2016 the applicant asked Vilnius Correctional Facility, where he had been serving his sentence, to issue him with hygiene products and stationery (pens, notebooks, envelopes and postage stamps). In February 2016 he received a reply that he could buy the requested products in the correctional facility shop. The applicant was also informed that he had five euros in his account and could purchase the products he wanted. It appears that for that money the applicant bought tea, waffles and sweets.

6. The decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court was served on the applicant on 8 February 2016.

7 . The applicant wrote an appeal, dated 12 February 2016. His letter to the Supreme Administrative Court was received by the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Facility on 15 February 2016 and sent to the court on the same day.

8 . On 27 April 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant had asked for an extension of the time-limit in respect of lodging an appeal. He submitted that he had missed the time-limit because his bank account had been frozen by a bailiff and that he had consequently been unable to buy postage stamps and envelopes, and that the administration of the correctional facility had not issued him with pens and envelopes. The court furthermore noted that the applicant had missed the time-limit by three days; however, it held that although the applicant ’ s freedom of movement had been restricted, as regards to his wish to have stationery, he had not been diligent enough. The court also noted that under domestic law convicted inmates had to pay for the postage for letters sent and that the administration of a correctional facility was not obliged to provide convicted inmates with stationery. The court ruled that the applicant could have made sure that he had stationery in time to send the appeal. The court also held that the fact that the applicant ’ s account had been frozen by a bailiff had been misleading because the applicant received money into the account of the Vilnius Correctional Facility and not into his personal account.

9. The applicant lodged another appeal, also asking for the time-limit for lodging it to be extended. He submitted that he had not been able to anticipate the outcome of the proceedings before the court of first instance and that he had not been able to prepare his appeal before he knew the decision of that court.

10. On 24 August 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court observed that the time-limits set under the relevant provisions of domestic law obliged a person to promptly react to violations of his or her rights and interests. In the present case, the applicant had delayed lodging an appeal and had thus missed the time-limit for subjective reasons that could not be deemed important enough to justify the extension of the time-limit for him to lodge an appeal. The applicant ’ s request was accordingly rejected.

11 . Between 4 January and 29 February 2016 the applicant sent twenty-two letters to various authorities and officers.

12 . In 2015 the applicant received EUR 36 in benefits; during the same period he received thirteen disciplinary penalties (see paragraphs 15 and 16 below).

B. Relevant domestic law

13 . Article 127 § 1 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings provides that the decisions of the regional courts can be appealed against within fourteen days of their issuance. Article 127 § 2 provides that, upon the applicant ’ s request, the time-limit for lodging an appeal can be extended if it was missed for important reasons.

14 . Article 100 § 7 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provides that convicted inmates have to pay postal expenses in respect of their suggestions, requests, petitions and claims.

15 . Article 173 § 7 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences provides that the remand prisoners, convicted inmates and life prisoners may be provided with a monthly benefit of up to 0.3 of the basic social allowance (basic social allowance is EUR 38).

16 . The rules on the provision of benefits to the persons in correctional facilities and prisons of 23 December 2005, approved by the order of the director of the Prison Department, No. 4-07-260, provide that the specific amount of the benefit is determined by the institution taking into account, inter alia , its resources, the conduct of the person at issue, his participation in the working activities and social rehabilitation programmes (Point 2).

COMPLAINTS

17. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention about the refusal of the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Facility to provide him with stationery.

THE LAW

18. The applicant complained about the refusal of the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Facility to provide him with stationery. He considered that this had interfered with his right of access to court and to respect for his correspondence.

He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.

In so far as relevant, these provisions read as follows:

Article 6

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 8

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for ... 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.”

A. The parties ’ submissions

19 . The applicant claimed that he had written an appeal and that he had given it to the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Facility on 12 February 2016 but it had only been sent on 15 February 2016. He further claimed that he had no postage stamps and he could not buy them because his bank account had been frozen and thus he had been deprived of access to the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant submitted that he had received EUR 36 from the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Facility in 2016 (see paragraph 12 above) and that it had not been enough. He also stated that he had EUR 5 in his account in January 2016 (see paragraph 5 above) but that he had used the money to repay his debts to other inmates. He also claimed that at that point he could not have predicted the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.

20. The Government submitted that the Supreme Administrative Court refused to extend the time-limit to submit an appeal after careful examination of the applicant ’ s diligence. They further stated that where detainees did not have enough financial means, they were entitled to a monthly benefit of up to EUR 11.40 and a monthly allowance of up to EUR 15.20. The detainees could spend the money in the local shop to buy various products, including stationery. In 2015 the applicant received EUR 36 in benefits and during the same period he had received thirteen disciplinary penalties (see paragraph 12 above). In the Government ’ s view, although the authorities had not provided postage stamps, envelopes and paper, they had provided the applicant with the means to buy them. The Government noted that between January and February 2016 the applicant had sent twenty-two letters to various authorities and officers (see paragraph 11 above).

21. The Government stated that the applicant ’ s argument that his account had been frozen by a bailiff and thus he could not buy anything (see paragraph 19 above) had not been true because the bailiff could not recover the debts from social benefits and allowances. Moreover, the EUR 5 which the applicant had in his account in January 2016 had been used to buy tea and sweets (see paragraph 5 above) and not stationery.

22. Finally, the Government submitted that in the case of a lack of financial means, the applicant could have applied to receive legal aid.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

23. The Court notes that the right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 89, 29 November 2016). The requirement to lodge a judicial claim within a statutory time ‑ limit is not, in itself, incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Dumitru Gheorghe v. Romania , no. 33883/06 , § 27, 12 April 2016 ).

24. The Court further notes that the essential object of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities. This provision does not oblige a State to pay for all correspondence sent by prisoners, nor does it guarantee the prisoners the choice of writing material. However, an issue may arise if, by reason of a prisoner ’ s lack of private funds, his or her right to correspond has been seriously impaired (see Cotleţ v. Romania , no. 38565/97, § 61, 3 June 2003).

25. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant could send an unlimited number of letters; he just had to bear the postal expenses (see paragraph 14 above). In abstracto , under certain circumstances the requirement to bear those expenses may constitute an interference with the person ’ s right to respect for his correspondence. In the present case, however, the Court is satisfied that such interference was in accordance with the law, notably with Article 100 § 7 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences, and could be justified under one or several aims listed in Article 8 § 2, for example for the prevention of disorder and crime. Also, an excessive burden could not be placed on the authorities to bear the expenses of all the inmates ’ letters that they wished to send.

26. The Court notes that because the applicant had not had enough financial means, he had been receiving financial support which he could use to buy goods at the correctional facility shop (see paragraph 12 above). The Court notes that in January 2016 the applicant had EUR 5 in his account but he used the money to buy sweets and tea and not to pay his debts as submitted by the applicant (see paragraphs 5 and 19 above). Moreover, the applicant claimed that he had submitted the appeal on time but the authorities had failed to post it on the same day. However, it transpires from the documents at the Court ’ s possession that the applicant ’ s appeal was received by the administration of the correctional facility and sent to the Supreme Administrative Court on the same day, 15 February 2016, when the time ‑ limit had already been missed (see paragraph 7 above). What is more, in that appeal the applicant had already asked to have the time-limit extended in order to submit it on time, which would have hardly been necessary if he had submitted it to the administration on 12 February 2016 as he had alleged (see paragraph 8 above). Finally, the Court notes that the applicant had exercised his right to correspondence quite actively as in almost two months, including the period when he had to submit an appeal, he had sent twenty ‑ two letters to various authorities and officers (see paragraph 11 above).

27. The Court takes note that according to domestic law the time-limit for the appeal is fourteen days of the issuance of the relevant decision of the first-instance court (see paragraph 13 above). However, the essence of the applicant ’ s complaint was not the length of the time-limit to submit an appeal, but the alleged refusal of the authorities to issue him with stationery and postage stamps. Given that the applicant was allowed to buy writing material and postage stamps in the correctional facility shop and that he had been provided with means to do that, the Court concludes that the authorities ’ decision not to provide him with stationery free of charge did not exceed the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State and did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and/or 8 of the Convention.

28. For the above reasons, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 May 2019 .

Andrea Tamietti Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Deputy Registrar President