Information Note on the Court’s case-law 23

October 2000

Touroude v. France (dec.) - 35502/97

Decision 3.10.2000 [Section III]

Article 5

Article 5-4

Speediness of review

Length of examination by Court of Cassation of an appeal on points of law against a decision refusing to order release: inadmissible

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for correspondence

Opening by prison authorities of letter sent to a prisoner by th e Court: inadmissible

The applicant was sentenced to thirty-years’ imprisonment by the assize court on 14 June 1995 for offences including rape and attempted murder. That conviction was quashed by the Court of Cassation and the case remitted for retrial be fore a different bench of the assize court. An application for release lodged by the applicant with the indictment division on 6 May 1996 was dismissed on 20 May. He lodged a further application with the assize court on 4 June 1996, but it was dismissed on 11 June. Both the indictment division and the assize court held that his continued detention was necessary to ensure that he did not reoffend or interfere with witnesses and that he would appear at the trial. On 7 and 17 June 1996 he lodged appeals with t he Court of Cassation against those decisions. His appeal against the decision of the indictment division was dismissed on 14 November 1996 and his appeal against the decision of the assize court on 29 April 1997. Further applications for release lodged wi th the indictment division between June and August 1996 were dismissed between July and September 1996. He did not appeal to the Court of Cassation against those decisions. On 14 November 1996 the assize court to which his case had been remitted sentenced him to twenty-years’ imprisonment and ordered that at least two-thirds of the sentence be served. The applicant alleged that while he was in prison the prison authorities had opened confidential correspondence on a number of occasions. In support of his al legations he produced an envelope which had been addressed to him by the registry of the Court. It was marked “opened in error” and bore the prison authorities’ stamp. The applicant had complained about that breach of confidence and the administrative cour t had forwarded his complaint to the President of the Conseil d’État .

Inadmissible under Article 5 § 4: The Court had concerns about the length of time the Court of Cassation had taken to examine the appeal lodged by the applicant on 17 June 1996. However, the applicant had had a statutory right under French law to make further applications for release at any time and had done so on five occasions. The indictment division had determined those applications within periods of fourteen to eighteen days and the applicant had not appealed to the Court of Cassation against the decisions: manifestly ill-founded.

I nadmissible under Article 8: As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Government had not shown that any binding authority existed on that point; in particular, it was not an issue that had been before the Conseil d’État . As to the merits, the ap plicant had produced only one envelope – which had indeed been opened by the prison authorities – in support of his allegations of repeated failures to respect his correspondence. Under the domestic legislation, the Secretariat of the Commission and the Re gistry of the Court were among the authorities with whom prisoners could correspond in a sealed envelope which it was unlawful to open. Communications between prisoners and the Court had to be free of any unnecessary restrictions. However, out of forty or so letters exchanged between the applicant and the Court, only one had been opened “in error” and that had occurred in a prison to which the applicant had recently been transferred. There was nothing therefore to support the conclusion that the authorities had intended to interfere in the exchanges between the applicant and the Convention institutions or that there had been a malfunctioning of the postal service that could indisputably be said to constitute an interference with the right to respect for his correspondence: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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