For the first time the European Court of Human Rights has stated that denying a prisoner access to the Internet may amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In Estonia Mr Kalda, who is serving a life sentence in prison, requested from the governor of the prison access to the online version of the State Gazette, to the decisions of the Supreme Court and administrative courts, and  to the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights

Voorhoof, Dirk

English

For the first time the European Court of Human Rights has stated that denying a prisoner access to the Internet may amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In Estonia Mr Kalda, who is serving a life sentence in prison, requested from the governor of the prison access to the online version of the State Gazette, to the decisions of the Supreme Court and administrative courts, and  to the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights.For the first time the European Court of Human Rights has stated that denying a prisoner access to the Internet may amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In Estonia Mr Kalda, who is serving a life sentence in prison, requested from the governor of the prison access to the online version of the State Gazette, to the decisions of the Supreme Court and administrative courts, and  to the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights.A

Voorhoof, DirkRE228010004618190000-0003-2330-3023F4040CB6-F0ED-11E1-A9DE-61C894A0A6B4

Archivsystem Ask23

European Court of Human Rights: Kalda v. Estonia

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2016-4/2European Court of Human Rights: Kalda v. EstoniaFor the first time the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has stated that denying a prisoner access to theInternet may amount to a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In Estonia,Mr Kalda, who is serving a life sentence in prison, requested from the governor of the prison access to the onlineversion of the State Gazette, to the decisions of the Supreme Court and administrative courts, and to the HUDOCdatabase of the ECtHR. The governor refused this request, and so did the Administrative Court and the TallinnCourt of Appeal. The Supreme Court, however, decided that the refusal of the prison administration to grantdetainees access to the rulings of the administrative courts and of the ECtHR interfered with their right to freelyobtain information disseminated for public use, and considered the refusal unlawful. Some time later, Mr Kaldamade a new application, requesting to be granted access to the Internet sites www.coe.ee of the Council of EuropeInformation Office in Tallinn, www.oiguskantsler.ee, the website of the Chancellor of Justice and www.riigikogu.ee,the website of the Estonian Parliament. He argued that he was involved in a number of legal disputes with theprison administration and that he needed access to those Internet sites in order to be able to defend his rightsin court. Again Mr Kalda’s request was refused. The Supreme Court this time concluded that the prohibition ofdetainees’ access to the three Internet sites at issue was justified by the need to achieve the aims of imprisonmentand in particular the need to secure public safety. Mr Kalda lodged an application with the ECtHR, complaining thatthe Estonian 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 ECHR.In its judgment of 19 January 2016, the European Court reiterated that the right to receive information basicallyprohibits a government from preventing a person from receiving information that others wished or were willingto impart. It also emphasises that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicatevast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news andfacilitating the dissemination of information in general. However, as imprisonment inevitably involves a number ofrestrictions on prisoners’ communications with the outside world, including on their ability to receive information,the Court considered that Article 10 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as imposing a general obligation toprovide access to the Internet, or to specific Internet sites, for prisoners. Nevertheless, since access to certainsites containing legal information is granted under Estonian law, the restriction of access to other sites that alsocontain legal information constitutes an interference with the right to receive information. Therefore the Courtneeded to examine whether this interference met the conditions of Article 10 paragraph 2 of the Convention. Asthere was no discussion that the interference with Mr Kalda’s right to receive information was prescribed by theImprisonment Act and pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of the rights of others and the prevention ofdisorder and crime, the ultimate question was whether the refusal to grant access to the websites at issue wasnecessary in a democratic society.The Court noted that the websites to which Mr Kalda wished to have access predominantly contained legal in-formation and information related to fundamental rights, including the rights of prisoners. It considers that theaccessibility of such information promotes public awareness and respect for human rights and gives weight toMr Kalda’s argument that the Estonian courts used such information and that he needed access to it for the pro-tection of his rights in the court proceedings. The Court drew attention to the fact that in a number of Councilof Europe and other international instruments, the public-service value of the Internet and its importance for theenjoyment of a range of human rights has been recognised. By referring to the 2003 Declaration on freedom ofcommunication on the Internet of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (see IRIS 2003-7/3) and tothe 2011 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/17/27) of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteuron the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (see also IRIS 2011-8/2), theCourt held that Internet access has increasingly been understood as a right, and that calls have been made todevelop effective policies to attain universal access to the Internet and to overcome the “digital divide”. The Courtconsidered that these developments reflect the important role the Internet plays in people’s everyday lives, as anincreasing amount of services and information is only available on the Internet.Finally the Court notes that under the Imprisonment Act, prisoners in Estonia have been granted limited access tothe Internet via computers specially adapted for that purpose and under the supervision of the prison authorities.Thus, arrangements necessary for the use of the Internet by prisoners have in any event been made and therelated costs have been borne by the authorities. While the security and economic considerations cited by thedomestic authorities may be considered relevant, the Court noted that the domestic courts undertook no detailedanalysis as to the security risks allegedly emerging from the access to the three additional websites in question,also having regard to the fact that these were websites of State authorities and of an international organisation.The Court also considered that the Estonian authorities have failed to convincingly demonstrate that giving MrIRIS 1Kalda access to three additional websites would have caused any noteworthy additional costs. In these circum-stances, the Court is not persuaded that sufficient reasons have been put forward in the present case to justifythe interference with Mr Kalda’s right to receive information. The Court concluded, by six votes to one, that theinterference with Mr Kalda’s right to receive information, in the specific circumstances of the present case, couldnot be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly it found a violation of Article 10 ofthe ECHR.In his dissenting opinion, the Danish judge Kjølbro found that there is no violation of Article 10 and that Mr Kalda’sapplication should have been dismissed. He also argues that the question of prisoners’ right to access to theInternet is a novel issue in the Court’s case law and that given the general importance of prisoners’ access tothe Internet, as well as the practical and financial implications of granting prisoners access to the Internet, thequestion should not have been decided by a Chamber, but by the Grand Chamber. In the meantime, the EstonianGovernment has announced a request for a referral to the Grand Chamber in this case.• Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, case Kalda v. Estonia, Application no. 17429/10 of 19 January 2016http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=17910ENDirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium), Copenhagen University (Denmark), Legal Human Academy and member of theExecutive Board of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF, Germany)The objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 2

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/7237954/file/7237955

European Court of Human Rights: Kalda v. Estonia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivsystem Ask23

Ghent University Academic Bibliography