Search
document

Document text Analytics

W. v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. S. TRECHSEL, E. BUSUTTIL,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 4, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

W. v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. S. TRECHSEL, E. BUSUTTIL,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 4, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. S. TRECHSEL, E. BUSUTTIL,

A. WEITZEL, H.G. SCHERMERS, MRS. G.H. THUNE,

MM. C.L. ROZAKIS, L. LOUCAIDES AND G.B. REFFI

Letter of 3 February 1989 to Councillor Murray

We regret that we cannot agree with the majority of the

Commission that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the

Convention in relation to the stopping of the above letter (see

paras. 56-58).

As regards the necessity of the interference within the meaning

of the second paragraph of Article 8, we reach a different conclusion.

The Government have put forward as the legitimate aim of the

interference the purpose of protecting the right of the prison officer

who had been named in the letter from having the imputations made

against him published. We note however that the letter was addressed

to a Councillor who was Chairman of a Working Party on penal reform.

It is not apparent to us that the contents of such letters are the

likely subject of publication or that they could reasonably be

suspected as being such. Having regard to the importance that prisoners

are able to make use of appropriate "safety valves" for their

grievances and frustrations and the normal protection offered against

publication of defamatory material by domestic law, we consider that

the stopping of the letter cannot be regarded as justified by "a

pressing social need" and, consequently, the interference cannot be

regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of

Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention. In conclusion there has been a

violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the stopping of

the letter of 3 February 1989.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

________________________________________________________________

09.01.90 Introduction of the application

26.02.90 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

11.07.90 Rapporteur's request to the Government for information

10.09.90 Government's reply to request

30.12.90 Applicant's response to Government

13.04.91 Government's further comments

09.05.91 Applicant's further response

12.12.91 Commission's decision to invite the parties to submit

observations on the admissibility and merits on the

applicant's complaints concerning two of his letters.

The remainder of the application was declared

inadmissible.

09.03.92 Government's observations

28.03.92 Applicant's reply

10.07.92 Commission's grant of legal aid

12.10.92 Commission's decision to declare the remainder of the

application admissible

Examination of the merits

12.10.92 Commission's deliberations on the merits

05.12.92 Consideration of the state of proceedings

04.05.93 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final votes

and adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant