Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2016 m. sausio 19 d.
Facts
The applicant, a prisoner, complained that he was prevented from carrying out legal research because of being refused access to certain internet sites. These included the website of the local Council of Europe Information Office and some state-run databases containing legislation and judicial decisions.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the authorities’ refusal to grant him access to certain websites violated his right to receive information “without interference by public authority”, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court ruled that 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, given that under the domestic law prisoners were granted limited access to the internet, the restriction of access to other sites that also contained legal information had constituted interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder and crime.
The Court noted that in a number of Council of Europe and other international instruments internet access had increasingly been understood as a right, and calls had been made to develop effective policies to attain universal access to the Internet and to overcome the “digital divide”. Moreover, an increasing number of services and information were only available on the internet.
The domestic courts had not given due consideration to any possible security risks attendant on the applicant’s use of the websites in question, bearing in mind that they were run by the Council of Europe and the state itself. Nor had it been demonstrated that giving the applicant access to additional websites would have caused any noteworthy additional costs. In sum, while the security and economic considerations might be relevant, they had not been sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. Thus, the Court found that there was a violation of Article 10.