Applicant name | X. |
Applicant type | Natural person (prisoner) |
Country | The United Kingdom |
Decision no. | 6564/74 |
Date | 21/05/1975 |
Judges | –
|
Institution | Commission |
Type | Decision |
Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
Reason | Manifestly ill-founded (public safety; health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others) |
Type of privacy | Family privacy |
Keywords | Conjugal visit prisoner; European Consensus; limmitation clause |
Facts of the case | Prisoner is denied conjugal visits |
Analysis | The case is interesting for four reasons:
1. The Commission reverses the claim; instead of analysing Article 3 ECHR, which is invoked by applicant, it discusses the matter under Article 8 and 12 ECHR. |
Documents | Decision |