ECHR Article 8 – Violations of correspondence

There have been a number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) involving allegations of violations of the right to private correspondence while arrested.

• In the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (2014), the applicants, Mr. Ahmad and others, were arrested and detained in the United Kingdom on the basis of extradition requests from the United States, where they were wanted for terrorism-related offenses. During their detention, the authorities opened and read several of their letters, including some that were addressed to their lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The ECtHR awarded damages to the applicants.
• In the case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (2009), the applicants, Mr. A. and others, were arrested and detained in the United Kingdom on the basis of extradition requests from the United States, where they were wanted for terrorism-related offenses. During their detention, the authorities opened and read several of their letters, including some that were addressed to their lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded damages to the applicants.
• In the case of Taliye v. the United Kingdom (2009), the applicant, Mr. Taliye, was arrested and detained in the United Kingdom on the basis of an extradition request from the United States, where he was wanted for fraud. During his detention, the authorities opened and read several of his letters, including some that were addressed to his lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Mr. Taliye’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded him damages.

• In the case of Kruslin v. France (1990), the applicant, Mr. Kruslin, was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. During his detention, the authorities opened and read several of his letters, including some that were addressed to his lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Mr. Kruslin’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded him damages.
• In the case of Rotaru v. Romania (2000), the applicant, Ms. Rotaru, was arrested and detained on suspicion of fraud. During her detention, the authorities opened and read several of her letters, including some that were addressed to her lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Ms. Rotaru’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded her damages.
• In the case of Vasilev v. Bulgaria (2011), the applicant, Mr. Vasilev, was arrested and detained on suspicion of fraud. During his detention, the authorities opened and read several of his letters, including some that were addressed to his lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Mr. Vasilev’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded him damages.
• In the case of Akkoc v. Turkey (2008), the applicant, Mr. Akkoc, was arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism-related offenses. During his detention, the authorities opened and read several of his letters, including some that were addressed to his lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Mr. Akkoc’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded him damages.
• In the case of Martinie v. France (2002), the applicant, Mr. Martinie, was arrested and detained on suspicion of drug trafficking. During his detention, the authorities opened and read several of his letters, including some that were addressed to his lawyer. The ECtHR found that the authorities’ actions had constituted a violation of Mr. Martinie’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, and awarded him damages.

Hits: 18