| Applicant name | NAMAZLI |
| Applicant type | natural person (prisoner client) |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | AZERBAIJAN |
| Application no. | 8826/20 |
| Date | 20/06/2024 |
| Judges | Marko Bošnjak, President, Alena Poláčková, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Lətif Hüseynov, Ivana Jelić, Gilberto Felici, Erik Wennerström |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not in accordance with law |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Opening letters |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his Convention rights had been breached as a result of the inspection of his documents and the seizure of his client’s statement by the prison administration |
| Analysis | Article 75.5 of the CEP, read in the light of the provisions of the Rules on Entering Prisons, does not provide a clear and detailed legal framework or safeguards against possible abuse or arbitrariness. On the contrary, those provisions draw no distinction between inmates’ lawyers and other visitors such as family members and they disregard the special status of lawyers in the administration of justice. Under those provisions, prison staff could in practice exercise an unfettered discretion to inspect the documents of a lawyer visiting his or her client in prison and would not even be required to provide any reason or justification for their decisions. The Court considers that such an interpretation and application of the relevant domestic law would render the privilege accorded to the lawyer‑client relationship devoid of any substance in the context of persons deprived of their liberty. In particular, it would be incompatible with respect for the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications as protected under Article 8 of the Convention if the inspection of a lawyer’s documents before and after visiting his or her client in prison were at the discretion of prison staff as the Government seem to have suggested in the present case. |
| Other Article violation? | Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention; |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 39.56 (thirty-nine euros and fifty-six cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |