BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yepishin v. Russia - 591/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 728 (27 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/728.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 728 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164
June 2013
Yepishin v. Russia - 591/07
Judgment 27.6.2013 See: [2013] ECHR 612 [Section I]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Prison administration’s refusal to pay postage for dispatch of prisoner’s letters to the European Court: no violation
Facts - The applicant, who was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony, complained that the colony authorities had refused to assist him with postage costs he could not afford for correspondence with the European Court. According to the Government, the authorities had twice paid for letters to be sent to the Court, but the supervising prosecutor had then informed the applicant’s representative that no federal budget funds had been allocated to provide free stationery to inmates. The applicant subsequently received money, stamps and envelopes from an NGO.
Law - Article 34: Not providing a prisoner with the resources required to correspond with the Court could contribute to a finding of a breach of the State’s obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. However, the Court did not consider the facts complained of by the applicant sufficient to disclose any prejudice in the presentation of his application. Although the authorities had on a number of occasions refused to pay the postage, it did not appear to have been excessively burdensome for him to bear the expenses himself. The applicant had been found fit for work and could have accepted employment that had been offered by the correctional colony. The fact that the applicant’s representative had sent him stamps and envelopes and cash to pay for the postage did not raise an issue under Article 34. Accordingly, the Government had not failed to comply with their obligation under that provision.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
The Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention. It awarded the applicant EUR 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
