CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I share – not without serious doubts – the conclusion of the Chamber on the violation of Article 34 of the Convention. But I would like to point out that usually the Court analyses the so-called monitoring of applicants ’ correspondence by the prison authorities with reference to the guarantees provided by Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Petra v. Romania , judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36; Peers v. Greece , judgment of 19 April 2001, ECHR 2001-III, §§ 82-84). In a similar Russian case Klyakhin v. Russia (judgment of 30 November 2004) the Court also concluded that an interference with the applicant ’ s right to correspondence should be analysed under Article 8 (§ 108).

In the present case the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, complained about the same facts under Article 34 which is more “special” and deals with real pressure on the applicants, which is not the case here. Accordingly, I consider that the Court could, proprio motu , give its own qualification of the alleged violation of the right to correspondence.