27
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
1982 (see paragraph 8 above) contains a claim in the name of this applicant
for just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) and a determination by the
Court of the Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) issue may be of relevance in this
connection.
82. The Government, in the alternative, stated that in light of the Golder
judgment they did not contest the Commission’s finding that there had been
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1). There being no material difference
between the facts of Mr. Silver’s case and those of Mr. Golder’s, the Court
confirms that finding.
III. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 (art. 8)
83. In the applicants’ submission, the stopping or delaying of the 64
letters in question constituted a violation of Article 8 (art. 8), which reads as
follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
84. It is clear - and indeed this was not disputed - that there were
"interferences by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicants’
right to respect for their correspondence, which is guaranteed by paragraph
1 of Article 8 (art. 8-1). Such interferences entail a violation of that Article
if they do not fall within one of the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2
(art. 8-2). The Court therefore has to examine in turn whether the
interferences in the present case were "in accordance with the law", whether
they had an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under Article 8 § 2 (art. 8-2)
and whether they were "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid
aim or aims (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the Sunday Times judgment of
26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 29, § 45).
A. Were the interferences "in accordance with the law"?
1. General principles
85. In its Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, the Court examined
the meaning of the expression "prescribed by law", noting in this connection
certain differences which exist between the French and English versions of
Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 (art. 8, art. 9, art. 10, art. 11) of the Convention,