Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801014-828378
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 22:49:17+00:00
Document Index: 90669771

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 22", "l'article 456", "l'article 22", "l'article 22", "l'article 8", "l'article 24", "l'article 24", "l'article 8", "l'article 22", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 24", "l'article 8", "l'article 24", "l'article 20", "l'article 456", "l'article 139", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

VANDERLINDEN c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche VANDERLINDEN c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation partielle du rôle ; Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (deuxième requérant)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8283/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-10-14;8283.78 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : VANDERLINDENDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8283/7 8 Thierry VANDERLINDEN v/BELGIUM Thierry VANDERLINDEN c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 14 October 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 14 octobre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention : a) Examiration of rtationa! law and of the manner in which it was applied in order to delermine whether an interference with correspondence was or was not "in accordance with the (atv" . b) Normal contro( by the prison authorities of corresporrdence addressed to prisoners is a necessary element for the maintenance of prison discipline .
Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : a) Examen du droit national et de la rnaniÃ¨re dont il a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©, afin de dÃ©terminer si une ingÃ©rence dans la correspondance Ã©tait ou non . prÃ©vue par la loi = . b) Le corurBle normal, pur les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires, de la correspondance adressÃ©e aux dÃ©tenus est un Ã©lÃ©tnent nÃ©cessaire au ntaintien de l'ordre en prison .
(English : seep. 132)
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est nÃ© le 30 avril 1948 Ã Saint-]osse-Ten-Noode en Belgique . II est actuellement domiciliÃ© Ã Auderghem . Il est avocat . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par MaÃ®tre Serge Moureaux, avocat au Barreau de Bruxelles . - 127-
Par dÃ©cision du conseil de l'Ordre des avocats de Bruxelles, du 22 avril 1976, le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet d'une mesure de suspension pour une durÃ©e de quatre mois pour avoir, notamment les 27 novembre 1975 et 1 - dÃ©cembre 1975, fait parvenir Ã deux de ses clients condamnÃ©s et incarcÃ©rÃ©s Ã la prison centrale de Louvain des documents qui, selon le conseil de l'Ordre des avocats, ne prÃ©sentaient aucun lien avec les nÃ©cessitÃ©s de la dÃ©fense . Il s'agissait en l'espÃ¨ce d'une lettre du requÃ©rant Ã un dÃ©tenu Ã laquelle Ã©taient joints quatre exemplaires du NÂ° 9 d'un journal intitulÃ© C .A .P . (ComitÃ© d'Action des Prisonniers - Belgique - Journal des Prisonniers) ainsi que trois photographies reprÃ©sentant un mariage civil, et d'une autre lettre du requÃ©rant adressÃ©e Ã un autre dÃ©tenu et Ã laquelle Ã©taient joints trois exemplaires du mÃªme journal .
Le directeur de la prison ayant constatÃ© une diffÃ©rence entre l'adresse du requÃ©rant mentionnÃ©e sur les deux plis et celle figurant, d'une part, Ã l'annuaire des avocats et, d'autre part, au secrÃ©tariat de l'Ordre, avait adressÃ© le 4 dÃ©cembre 1975 au BÃ¢tonnier une lettre Ã laquelle Ã©taient joints ces deux plis non dÃ©cachetÃ©s . Le BÃ¢tonnier convoqua le requÃ©rant en son cabinet et l'invita Ã ouvrir en sa prÃ©sence chacun des deux plis . Le 30 mars 1976, le requÃ©rant a comparu devant le conseil de l'Ordre . Le requÃ©rant fit valoir que c'Ã©tait Ã tort qu'une procÃ©dure disciplinaire avait Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e contre lui, puisqu'elle trouvÃ©rait son origine dans une interception illÃ©gale de son courrier par l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire, qui constituerait une mÃ©connaissance de l'inviolabilitÃ© de la correspondance consacrÃ©e Ã l'article 22 de la Constitution et reconnue aux avocats plus particuliÃ¨rement par les articles 20 et 24 de l'arrÃ©tÃ© royal du 21 mai 1965 portant rÃ¨glement gÃ©nÃ©ral des Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires . Quant au fond, le requÃ©rant, pour justifier les actes qui lui Ã©taient reprochÃ©s . critiqua la rÃ©glementation de l'accÃ¨s Ã l'information dans les prisons, telle qu'elle aurait Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e Ã la suite d'une circulaire ministÃ©rielle du 5 mars 1975 concernant le a RÃ©gime des dÃ©tenus â¢ . Il soutint Ã cet Ã©gard que le pÃ©riodique CAP ne parvenait pas aux dÃ©tenus qui y Ã©taient abonnÃ©s, alors que d'autres publications ne subissaient pas un tel rÃ©gime discriminatoire . Quant Ã la procÃ©dure, le conseil de l'Ordre estima que le directeur de la prison, en agissant comme il l'avait fait, avait prÃ©servÃ© les prÃ©rogatives et les droits tant de la dÃ©fense que de l'Ordre en rappelant la nature et la mission de la juridiction disciplinaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©finie par l'article 456 du Code judiciaire . Quant au fond, le conseil de l'Ordre estima que si, effectivement, la situation de l'information des dÃ©tenus Ã©tait celle que dÃ©crivait le requÃ©rant, l e
systÃ¨me judiciaire belge permettait aux dÃ©tenus et Ã leurs conseils de contester cette pratique et d'exercer tels recours que de droit . Le conseil constata qu'aucun Ã©lÃ©ment du dossier ne permettait de considÃ©rer qu'une action judiciaire ou administrative avait Ã©tÃ© envisagÃ©e . L'envoi de plusieurs exemplaires du mÃªme numÃ©ro du - CAP â¢ Ã un mÃªme client dÃ©tenu confÃ©rait aux actes de l'avocat une dimension dÃ©bordant le cadre des relations entre avocat et justiciable et dÃ©montrait que le requÃ©rant avait usÃ© de moyens qui ne rÃ©pondaient pas aux nÃ©cessitÃ©s de la dÃ©fense . Il aurait ainsi contrevenu aux principes dÃ©ontologiques et Ã la jurisprudence du conseil de l'Ordre qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© rappelÃ©e Ã l'occasion d'une prÃ©cÃ©dente action disciplinaire en dÃ©cembre 1974, apparemment pour des faits analogues . Le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã cette occasion Ã se montrer plus circonspect Ã l'avenir. Le 22 avril 1976, le conseil de l'Ordre prononÃ§a Ã charge du requÃ©rant une peine de suspension d'une durÃ©e de quatre mois . Le requÃ©rant recourut auprÃ¨s du conseil de discipline d'appel du ressort de la cour d'appel . Il invoqua l'article 22 de la Constitution belge qui consacre le secret de la correspondance . Le conseil d'appel, le 26 aoÃ»t 1976 . dÃ©clara le recours non fondÃ© . Le conseil d'appel rappela que le respect de cet article 22 ne peut aller jusqu'Ã protÃ©ger le citoyen contre l'autoritÃ© judiciaire et par voie d'analogie contre l'autoritÃ© disciplinaire chargÃ©e d'assurer le respect de la dÃ©ontologie traditionnelle du barreau .
Le conseil d'appel constata que . en prÃ©sence des circonstances particuliÃ¨res de cette correspondance (contenu suspect des plis, adresses discordantes de l'expÃ©diteur), le Directeur de la prison pouvant craindre une incorrection ou une irrÃ©gularitÃ©, laissa Ã l'autoritÃ© disciplinaire le soin de prendre attitude quant Ã une Ã©ventuelle infraction Ã la rÃ¨gle selon laquelle l'avocat ne correspond avec son client que dans le seul intÃ©rÃªt de la dÃ©fense de ce dernier . Au fond, le conseil d'appel confirma que les documents transmis n'Ã©taient en rien nÃ©cessaires Ã la dÃ©fense des clients . Le conseil d'appel rappela Ã©galement que le droit pour l'avocat au secret de sa correspondance avec ses clients dÃ©tenus a pour corrollaire l'obligation d'en user loyalentent, c'est-Ã -dire de ne pas s'en servir Ã d'autres fins que les nÃ©cessitÃ©s de la dÃ©fense . Enfin, le conseil d'appel rappela les obligations dÃ©ontologiques de celui qui sollicite son admission'au tableau de l'Ordre . Le requÃ©rant se pourvut en cassation en faisant valoir que la transmission des deux plis au ;BÃ¢tonnier par le directeur de la prison constituait une violation du secret de la correspondance garanti par l'article 22 de la Consti-
tution belge et par l'article 8 de la Convention, ou, Ã tout le moins, une violation des dispositions de l'ArrÃªtÃ© royal du 21 mai 1965 portant rÃ¨glement gÃ©nÃ©ral des Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires et notamment de ses articles 20 et 24 . La Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi le 12 mai 1977 . La cour constata que l'exÃ©cution des peines, fondÃ©e sur les nÃ©cessitÃ©s de la sÃ©curitÃ© publique, exige des mesures de surveillance et de contrÃ´le, non seulement quant Ã la personne mais aussi quant Ã la correspondance . La cour rappela que si les articles 20 et 22 de l'ArrÃªtÃ© royal du 21 mai 1965 prescrivent les modalitÃ©s de contrÃ´le de la correspondance des dÃ©tenus, l'article 24, paragraphe 3 Ã©dicte une exception pour la correspondance entre dÃ©tenu et avocat, ce qui rend inapplicables au cas d'espÃ¨ce les articles 20 et 22 . La cour constata que, le contrÃ´le ne pouvant s'exercer par le directeur de la prison dans le cas de l'article 24, paragraphe 3, et Ã dÃ©faut d'indices d'infraction pÃ©nale, la vÃ©rification touchant au secret professionnel et au droit de la dÃ©fense ne peut Ãªtre effectuÃ©e que par le BÃ¢tonnier en vertu de la loi et des rÃ¨gles traditionnelles du barreau .
GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention en ce que la Cour de cassation a estimÃ© que le directeur de la prison centrale de Louvain, en interceptant deux plis adressÃ©s Ã des dÃ©tenus et portant sur l'enveloppe la mention du nom du requÃ©rant en plus de sa qualitÃ© d'avocat et en les transmettant ensuite au BÃ¢tonnier de l'Ordre des avocats pour que celui-ci puisse vÃ©rifier le contenu desdites lettres, n'a violÃ© aucune disposition lÃ©gale et a agi dans la limite de ses pouvoirs . Si le directeur de la prison de Louvain pensait que le contenu des lettres pouvait mettre en pÃ©ril la sÃ©curitÃ© publique ou pouvait concerner la prÃ©vention des infractions, il aurait dÃ», soit renvoyer lesdites lettres Ã leur expÃ©diteur, en application de l'article 22 de l'ArrÃªtÃ© royal du 21 mai 1965, soit faire dÃ©livrer un mandat de perquisition par application des articles 87 et 88 du Code d'instruction criminelle . Le droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa correspondance se trouvait ainsi violÃ©, aucune disposition lÃ©gale ou rÃ©glementaire en Belgique n'auto risant une telle ingÃ©rence .
EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires belges ont interceptÃ© et remis au bÃ¢tonnier de l'Ordre des avocats deux plis que le
requÃ©rant, mentionnant sa~qualitÃ© d'avocat, avait adressÃ©s Ã ses clients dÃ©tenu s 11 allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention qui garantit notamment le droit au respect de la correspondance . La Commission relÃ¨ve tout d'abord que le requÃ©rant . pour Ã©tayer ses griefs, s'appuie sur le secret de la correspondance entre avocat et ses clients, ce qui restreint considÃ©rablement le domaine couvert par l'article 8 Ã©voquÃ© ci-dessus . Il est vrai que l'article 24 . paragraphe 3 de l'ArrÃªtÃ© royal de mai 1965 dispense du contrÃ´le pÃ©nitentiaire la correspondance Ã©changÃ©e entre dÃ©tenus et avocats . Il est Ã©vident que ce privilÃ¨ge est accordÃ© dans le seul but de respecter les droits de la dÃ©fense . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission constate que le contenu des plis litigieux Ã©tait Ã©tranger aux intÃ©rÃªts de la dÃ©fense, prise dans son sens le plus large . et .qu'en consÃ©quence ce privilÃ¨ge ne pouvait en aucune faÃ§on entrer en jeu . NÃ©anmoins le requÃ©rant estime que la maniÃ¨re dont a agi le Directeur de la prison est contraire Ã la lÃ©gislation belge rÃ©gissant la matiÃ¨re ou, tout au moins, non prÃ©vue par elle . Pour la Commission, la question se pose de savoir s'il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la correspondance dans les conditions limitativenient Ã©numÃ©rÃ©es au paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission observe que le directeur de la prison de Louvain a constatÃ© que les deux plis dont il est question mentionnaient comme expÃ©diteur le nom du requÃ©rant accontpagnÃ© du titre d'avocat et une adresse ne correspondant pas Ã celle de son cabinet, figurant dans l'annuaire de l'Ordre . La Commission estime . dans ces conditions, que le directeur a pu avoir un doute sur le point de savoir si le requÃ©rant agissait Ã¨s qualitÃ© ou comme personne privÃ©e . Le directeur a donc vÃ©rifiÃ© s'il y avait lieu d'appliquer l'article 24 . paragraphe 3, de l'ArrÃªtÃ© royal ou l'article 20 dudit ArrÃªtÃ©, qui organise prÃ©cisÃ©ment le contrÃ´le pÃ©nitentiaire des lettres adressÃ©es aux dÃ©tenus .
Aux termes de l'article 456 du Code judiciaire belge, le bÃ¢tonnier, en sa qualitÃ© de prÃ©sident du Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats, est chargÃ© notamment de sauvegarder l'honneur de l'Ordre, de maintenir le principe de dignitÃ©, de probitÃ© et de dÃ©licatesse qui font la base de leur profession et de rÃ©primer ou de punir par voie de discipline les infractions et les fautes . C'est prÃ©cisÃ©ment pour permettre au bÃ¢tonnier d'exercer ces fonctions que le directeur a transmis les plis au bÃ¢tonnier . La mesure ainsi prise Ã©tait conforme Ã l'article 139 de l'ArrÃªtÃ© Royal qui prÃ©voit que dans tous les cas non prÃ©vus par le RÃ¨glement . les directeurs prennent telles mesures que les circonstances et la prudence leur suggÃ¨rent . -L11-
La Commission estime en outre que le contrÃ´le normal de la correspondance adressÃ©e aux dÃ©tenus par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires est un Ã©lÃ©ment nÃ©cessaire pour le maintien de l'ordre en prison . Etant donnÃ© que le directeur, qui n'a pas ouvert la correspondance litigieuse, ne disposa d'aucun autre moyen lÃ©gal de s'assurer que les plis litigieux ne compromettaient pas le bofi ordre dans l'Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire dont il portait la responsabilitÃ©, la Commission estime que l'ingÃ©rence en question Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire pour le maintien de l'ordre et, par consÃ©quent . justifiÃ©e aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . L'examen de la requÃªte telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e, ne rÃ©vÃ¨le donc aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention et, en particulier, dans son article 8 . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission
(TRANSLAT/O M THE FACT S The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant was born on 30 April 1948 at Saint-losse-Ten-Noode, in Belgium . His present home is at Auderghem . He is a barrister . He is represented before the Commission by Maitre Serge Moureaux, a barrister practising in Brussels . By decision of 22 April 1976, the Brussels Bar Council disbarred the applicant for four months on the grounds that on 27 November 1975 and 1 December 1975 he had sent documents to two of his clients, who had been sentenced and imprisoned in Louvain central prison, which in the opinion of the Bar Council were unrelated to the needs of the defence . The documents in question were letters from the applicant to the two prisoners . With one of the letters was enclosed four copies of No . 9 of a newspaper entitled CAP (ComitÃ© d'Action des Prisonniers - Belgique - Journal des Prisonniers [Prisonners' Actio n
Committee - Belgium - Prisoners' News] and three photographs depicting a civil weddings, while the other letter was accompanied by three copies of the same newspaper . Having observed a discrepancy between the applicant's address as shown on the two envelopes and the address as given in the barristers' yearbook and recorded at the Bar secretariat, the prison governor wrote to the President of the Bar on 4 December 1975 enclosing the two envelopes unopened . The President of the Bar called the applicant to his chambers and invited him to open the two envelopes in his presence . On 30 March 1976, the applicant appeared before the Bar Council . He argued that disciplinary action was taken against him wrongfully, since it was l'ounded on the unlawful interception of his correspondence by the prison administration, which constituted disregard for the inviolability of correspondence as laid down in Article 22 of the Constitution and as recognised ntore particularly for barrister in Articles 20 and 24 of the Royal Decree of 21 May 1965 laying down general regulations on prisons . With regard to the substance, the applicant justified his actions by criticising the regulation of access to information in prisons as enforced under a Ministerial circular of 5 March 1975 regarding prisoners' conditions . He maintained in this connection that the periodical CAP was not reaching prisoners who subscribed to it, whereas other publications were not subject to such discrimination . With regard to the procedure, the Bar Council considered that the prison Governor, in acting as he had done, had respected the privileges and rights of both the defence and of the Bar, while recalling the nature and purpose of the Governor's jurisdiction in disciplinary matters as laid down in Article 456 of the Judicial Code . With respect to the merits, the Bar Council took the view that, while the position of prisoners as regards information was in fact as the applicant described . the Belgian judicial system allowed prisoners and their counsel to challenge that practice and to use all lawful remedies . The Bar Council observed that there was nothing in the case record to suggest that judicial or administrative action had been considered . The dispatch of several copies of the same issue of "CAP" to the same prisoner gave the applicant's acts a dimension which went beyond the bounds ot' relations between barrister and client and showed that the applicant had gone further than the needs of the defence warranted . He had thus acted contrary to the ethical principles and practice of the Bar Council, of which he had been reminded on the occasion of previous disciplinary action, in december 1974, apparently for similar acts . He had then been told to be more - 133 -
circumspect in future . On 22 April 1976 the Bar Council disbarred the applicant for four months . The applicant appealed to the Disciplinary Appeals Board within the Appeal Court's district . He invoked Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution, which safguards the secrecy of correspondence . On 26 August 1976 the Board ruled that the appeal was ill-founded . The Appeals Board said that respect for Article 22 could not go so far as to protect citizens against the judicial authority or, by analogy, against the disciplinary authority responsible for ensuring respect for the traditional ethics of the Bar . The Appeals Board observed that, faced with the special circumstances attending this correspondence (the suspect content of the envelopes, discordant addresses for the sender), the prison Governor had had grounds for fearing some irregularity and had left it to the disciplinary authority to decide whether the rule that a barrister might correspond with his client solely in connection with the client's defence had been broken . With respect to the merits of the case, the Appeals Board confirmed that the documents sent were in no way necessary for the defence . The Appeals Board also said that the corollary of a barrister's right to secrecy of correspondence with his imprisoned clients was the duty to use that right honestly, i .e . not to use it for purposes other than the needs of the defence . Lastly, the Appeals Board reiterated the ethical obligations on persons seeking admission to the Bar . The applicant lodged a plea of nullity with the Court of Cassation on the grounds that the sending of the two letters to the President of the Bar by the prison Governor constituted a violation of the secrecy of correspondence safeguarded by Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention, or at the very least a violation of the Royal Decree of 21 May 1965 laying down general regulations on prisons, in particular Articles 20 and 24 . The Court of Cassation rejected the plea on 12 May 1977 . The Court ruled that the execution of sentences, which was founded on the requirements of public safety, called for supervisory and monitoring measures not only with regard to the person but also with regard to correspondence . The Court stated that, while Articles 20 and 22 of the Royal Decree of 21 May 1965 laid down the procedure for monitoring prisoners' correspondence, Article 24 (3) made an exception for correspondence between prisoner and barrister which rendered Articles 20 and 22 inapplicable to the case in question .
The Court ruled that, as the prison Governor could not control the correspondence because of Article 24 (3) and as there was no indication of a criminal offence, any check, which affected professional secrecy and the rights of the defence could be made only by the President of the Bar in accordance with the law and the traditional rules of the Bar .
COMPLAINT S The applicant alleges violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the Court of Cassation ruled that the Governor of Louvain central prison acted in accordance with the law and within his authority in intercepting two communications addressed to prisoners which showed on the envelope the applicant's name and his status as a barrister and in sending them to the President of the Bar so that he might check their contents . The applicant submits that if the Louvain prison Governor thought the contents of the letters might endanger public safety or might concern potential offences, he should either have returned them to their sender in accordance with Article 22 of the Royal Decree of 21 May 1965 or have applied for a search warrant under Articles 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The applicant's right to respect for correspondence was thus violated, as no statutory provision or regulation in Belgium authorised such interference . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE LAW The applicant complains that the Belgian prison authorities intercepted two le tters which he had sent to imprisoned clients, which mentioned his status as a bar ri ster, and sent them to the President of the Bar . He alleges a violation of A rt icle 8 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to respect for correspondence . The Comntission notes first that the applicant bases his claim on the secrecy of correspondence between barristers and their clients, thereby considerably rest ri cting the field covered by A rt icle 8 . It is true that A rt icle 24, paragraph 3, of the Royal Decree of 21 May 1965 exempts correspondence between prisoners and barristers from monitori ng by prison authorities . It is clear that this privilege is granted for the sole purpose of respecting the rights of the defence . In this case, the Commission notes that the content of the letters in question was unconnected with the interest of the defence, even in the widest sense, and that that privilege could therefore not in any way be claimed . Nevertheless, the applicant considers that the way in which the prison Governor acted was contrary to Belgian law on the matter or, at the ve ry least, not covered by the law .
The matter for the Commission to decide is whether any interference with the right to respect for correspondence which arose was in accordance with the conditions exhaustively listed in Article 8 . paragraph 2 . the Contmission observes that the Governor of Louvai n .Inthisregad prison noted that the two envelopes in question gave the applicant's name as sender, indicating his status as a barrister and an address which did not correspond to that of his chambers as shown in the barristers' yearbook . This being so . the Comntission considers that the Governor had grounds for uncertainty as to whether the applicant was acting in his oft-iciat capacity or as a private individual . The Governor therefore checked whether he should apply Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Royal Decree or Article 20 of that Decree, which specifically concerns monitoring by prison authorities of letters to prisoners . Article 456 of the Belgian Judicial Code states that the President of the Bar, as President of the Bar Council, is responsible for safeguarding the honour of the Bar, upholding the principle of dignity, probity and scrupulousness on which the profession is founded and preventing or punishing violations and misconduct by disciplinary measures . It was precisely to enable the President of the Bar to carry out those functions that the Governor sent the letters to him . The step thus taken was in accordance with Article 139 of the Royal Decree, which stipulates that in all cases not covered by the regulations, Governors shall take such measures as the circumstances and prudence suggest . . The Commission furthermore considers that normal monitoring by prison authorities of correspondence addressed to prisoners is necessary for the maintenance of order in prisons . Given that the Governor, who did not open the correspondence in question, had no other legal means of ensuring that the letters would not jeopardise order in the prison for which he was responsible, the Commission considers that the interference in question was necessary for the maintenance of order and, therefore, justified under Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention . Examination of the application as presented thus does not reveal any evidence of violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention or, in particular . in Article 8 of the Convention . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . - 136 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 14/10/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page