AB v the Netherlands - 37328/97 [2010] ECHR 1419 (15 September 2010)

AB v the Netherlands - 37328/97 [2010] ECHR 1419 (15 September 2010)

The Court found that the complete ban on correspondence with former inmates and the control of correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights were unjustified interferences with the applicant’s rights under Article 8, and that the lack of effective remedies for these interferences and the conditions of detention constituted a violation of Article 13.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1419
Parties
Applicant: A. B.; Respondent: The Netherlands
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment and Supervision by Committee of Ministers
Outcome
Case closed following execution of judgment and implementation of required measures.
Legal Topics
Interference With Correspondence, Right to Effective Remedy, Conditions of Detention
Human Rights Law Prison Law Interference With Correspondence Right to Effective Remedy Conditions of Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. B.

Applicant

The Netherlands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment and Supervision by Committee of Ministers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the control and interference with the applicant’s correspondence by prison authorities violated Article 8 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the lack of an effective remedy regarding interference with correspondence and conditions of detention violated Article 13 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the complete ban on correspondence with former inmates and the control of correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights were unjustified interferences with the applicant’s rights under Article 8, and that the lack of effective remedies for these interferences and the conditions of detention constituted a violation of Article 13.

Court Disposition

Case closed following execution of judgment and implementation of required measures.

Orders

  • Payment of EUR 3,500 to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage.
  • No further individual measures required as applicant was released and just satisfaction paid.