33
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
"useful", "reasonable" or "desirable" (see the Handyside judgment of 7
December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, § 48);
(b) the Contracting States enjoy a certain but not unlimited margin of
appreciation in the matter of the imposition of restrictions, but it is for the
Court to give the final ruling on whether they are compatible with the
Convention (ibid., p. 23, § 49);
(c) the phrase "necessary in a democratic society" means that, to be
compatible with the Convention, the interference must, inter alia,
correspond to a "pressing social need" and be "proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued" (ibid., pp. 22-23, §§ 48-49);
(d) those paragraphs of Articles of the Convention which provide for an
exception to a right guaranteed are to be narrowly interpreted (see the
above-mentioned Klass and others judgment, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42).
98. The Court has also held that, in assessing whether an interference
with the exercise of the right of a convicted prisoner to respect for his
correspondence was "necessary" for one of the aims set out in Article 8 § 2
(art. 8-2), regard has to be paid to the ordinary and reasonable requirements
of imprisonment (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no.
18, p. 21, § 45). Indeed, the Court recognises that some measure of control
over prisoners’ correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible
with the Convention.
2. Application in the present case of the above-mentioned principles
(a) Non-contested items
99. The Commission expressed the opinion that the stopping on the
following principal or subsidiary grounds of the following letters was not
"necessary in a democratic society":
(a) restriction on correspondence other than with a relative or friend (see
paragraphs 29-30 and 59 above): Mrs. Colne’s letters nos. 13-15, Mr.
McMahon’s letters nos. 35-41 and a letter of 31 December 1975 to him
from a journalist, Mr. Silver’s letter no. 4 and Mr. Carne’s letter no. 48;
(b) restriction on communications in connection with any legal or other
business (see paragraphs 32, 35, 41, 46 and 6O above): Mr. Cooper’s letter
no. 27, and Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 49 and 57 and his letter of 15 September
1975 to the National Council for Civil Liberties;
(c) prohibition on complaints calculated to hold the authorities up to
contempt (see paragraphs 45 (a), item (iii), and 64 above): Mr. Tuttle’s
letter no. 17 and Mr. Carne’s letter no. 51;
(d) prohibition on the inclusion in letters to legal advisers and Members
of Parliament of unventilated complaints about prison treatment (see
paragraphs 45 (a) and (b), 47 and 67 above): Mr. Noe’s letters nos. 9 and ll,
Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 20, 22, 23, 24 and 26 and his further letter of 3