| Applicant name | Golder |
| Applicant type | Natural person (prisoner) |
| Country | The United Kingdom |
| Decision no. | 4451/70 |
| Date | 01/06/1973 |
| Judges | Sperduti Fawcett Ermacora Welter Lindal Busuttil Daver Opsahl Mangan |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Report |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not necessary |
| Type of privacy | Informational Privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Prisoner; correspondence; lawyer |
| Facts of the case | See earlier decision |
| Analysis | Case interesting, but also difficult to interpret. It is interesting because a prisoner was hindered in corresponding with his lawyer by prison authorities, which could either be viewed as an interference with his right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR) or his right to correspondence (Article 8 ECHR). The Commission treats it as both and concludes that because there has been a violation of Article 6 ECHR, the same must hold true for Article 8 ECHR. It is also a Report that is difficult to understand because the reasoning of the Commission is relatively brief and raises many questions. Why does the Commission conclude a violation of both rights while it (and the Court) normally says that when a violation of one provision of the Convention is found with regard to a specific fact, it needs not to deal with the question of other potential provisions being violated? Will it always be true that if Article 6 ECHR is violated when hindering prisoners’ correspondence, the same will hold true for Article 8 ECHR? And why precisely can such hindering not be legitimised; is it because it is not in the interest of ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’ or because it is not ‘necessary in a democratic society’? And why is it not in that interest or not necessary in a democratic society? An explanation is not provided by the Commission. |
| Documents | Report |