The applicant submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. He argued that the prison authorities had unlawfully monitored his personal correspondence while he was incarcerated. According to the applicant, this interference was neither justified nor carried out in accordance with the law, and it constituted a serious breach of his right to privacy.
The applicant detained in Perekhrestivka in the Sumy Region since 2004, alleges that staff at Romny Prison No. 56 opened and reviewed sealed legal documents he submitted for mailing to the Higher Administrative Court in May 2014. The envelope, related to a prior legal dispute over prison mail practices, was reportedly tampered with, as the accompanying cover letter from the prison administration included the case number and page count—information that would not have been accessible without opening the sealed package.
In response, the applicant filed an administrative complaint in September 2014, seeking a declaration that the monitoring of his correspondence was unlawful, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. At the time of filing, he was unrepresented and requested to participate in court proceedings via videolink, citing his incarceration and lack of legal counsel. He also requested exemption from court fees, submitting documentation that confirmed he had no income or funds in his prison account.
However, the Sumy Circuit Administrative Court rejected his videolink request, stating that the Code of Administrative Justice at the time did not permit remote participation from prison. The court further ruled that provisions allowing videolinks in criminal proceedings could not be applied to administrative cases. The case proceeded without the inmate’s presence, while representatives from the prison administration attended and gave oral submissions. The court ultimately dismissed his claims.
The applicant appealed to the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, once again requesting the ability to appear via videolink. The appellate court denied the request, citing procedural rules that required participants to appear in person at the courthouse organizing the videolink—a logistical impossibility for an incarcerated individual without state assistance.
Upon reviewing the application, the Court found that the applicant’s complaint raised a serious issue under Article 8 and was not “manifestly ill-founded.” This means that the complaint appeared to have at least some merit and was not clearly baseless. Additionally, the Court did not identify any other reasons to declare the application inadmissible, such as procedural errors or jurisdictional issues.
As a result, the Court decided that the complaint met the necessary admissibility requirements under the Convention. It therefore declared this part of the application admissible, meaning that the case would move forward for a more detailed examination on its merits. The Court’s acceptance of the application indicated that it considered the alleged monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence to potentially involve a violation of the fundamental rights protected under Article 8.