Information Note on the Court’s case-law 26

January 2001

Natoli v. Italy - 26161/95

Judgment 9.1.2001 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for correspondence

Censorship of prisoner’s correspondence by prison authorities: violation

Facts : The applicant has been serving a life sentence since 1984. In July 1992 the Minister of Justice made an order applying to the applicant for one year the special rules of detention provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, in consequence whereof the applicant was forbidden from corresponding with other inmates and all his correspondence was censored. The special rules of detention were extend ed every six months until February 1997. However, the prohibition on corresponding with other inmates was lifted from August 1994. Pursuant to ministerial orders, from January 1994 censorship of the applicant’s correspondence was made subject to the prior authorisation of the relevant judicial authority. Thus, in a decision of January 1995 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ordered all the applicant’s correspondence to be censored under section 18 of the Prison Administration Act. That cen sorship continued after the special rules of detention had ceased to apply in February 1997 because the judge responsible for the execution of sentences had not revoked his decision of January 1995. Letters to the Commission and, in particular, letters to the applicant’s lawyers dated 1999 testify to that censorship.

Law : Article 8 – There was interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. With regard to the lawfulness of that interference during the initial period in which the special rules of detention applied (from July 1992 to January 1994), the control of his correspondence was based on an order of the Minister of Justice made pursuant to the aforementioned section 41 bis . In judgments of 1993, the Italian Constitutional Cou rt considered that the Minister of Justice had acted ultra vires under Italian law in taking measures regarding the correspondence. The control of the applicant’s correspondence during that period was not therefore "in accordance with the law”. For the sub sequent period the control of the correspondence had been ordered by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, who had based his decision on section 18 of the Prison Administration Act. In the Diana v. Italy judgment ( Reports of Judgments and D ecisions 1996-V) and the Domenichini v. Italy judgment ( Reports 1996-V), this Court held that the section in question did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and conditions of exercise of the relevant authorities’ power of appreciation in the ar ea in question. Furthermore, the Bill presented to the Senate introducing an amendment of the law in order to bring it into line with the above-mentioned judgments did not appear to have been passed. Although the new prison rules, which had come into force in September 2000, provided that letters addressed to the Court should not be censored, that change to the law did not affect section 18 of the Prison Administration Act, a provision which had been held to constitute an insufficient legal basis in the abo ve-mentioned judgment. A number of other applications concerning the control of inmates’ correspondence were, moreover, pending before the Court. The monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence was not therefore at any time “in accordance with the law”.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous)

Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction. A certain sum should, nevertheless, be awarded for costs and expenses.

© 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