Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2017 m. sausio 17 d.
Facts
The applicant, a prisoner, had been refused access to a website run by the Ministry of Education and Science, thus preventing him from receiving education-related information.
Complaint
The applicant complained that he did not have internet access in prison. He argued that this had prevented him from receiving education‑related information, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that imprisonment inevitably entailed some restrictions on prisoners’ communications with the outside world, including their ability to receive information. Article 10 could not be interpreted as imposing a general obligation to provide access to the internet, or specific internet sites for prisoners. However, in the circumstances of the case, since access to information relating to education was granted under Lithuanian law, the restriction of access to the internet site in question constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder and crime.
The domestic decisions had focused on the legal ban on prisoners having internet access instead of examining the applicants’ argument that access to a particular website was necessary for his education. The Lithuanian authorities had not considered the possibility of granting the applicant limited or controlled internet access to that website administered by a state institution, which could hardly have posed a security risk.
The Court was not persuaded that sufficient reasons had been put forward to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information which, in the specific circumstances of the case, could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. Thus, the Court found a violation of Article 10.