SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
36
three weeks in despatching the letter was so serious as to constitute a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8).
D. Conclusions on Article 8 (art. 8)
105. To sum up, the stopping of Mr. Silver’s letter no. 7, Mr. Noe’s letter
no. 10 and Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 28-31 was both "in accordance with the
law" and justifiable as "necessary in a democratic society" (see paragraphs
95, 102, 101 and 103 above). These interferences therefore did not
constitute a violation of Article 8 (art. 8). The same conclusion applies as
regards the delaying of Mr. Noe’s letter no. 12 (see paragraphs 95 and 104
above).
On the other hand, the stopping of the 57 remaining letters was not
"necessary in a democratic society" (see paragraph 99 above); there has
therefore been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in each case.
IV. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 (art. 10)
106. The applicants also submitted that the control of their mail by the
prison authorities constituted a breach of their right to freedom of
expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
107. The Commission concluded that since, in the context of
correspondence, the right to free expression was guaranteed by Article 8
(art. 8), it was not necessary to pursue a further examination of the matter in
the light of Article 10 (art. 10).
Neither Government nor applicants dissented from this opinion, with
which the Court concurs.
V. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13)
108. The applicants alleged that there existed in the United Kingdom no
effective remedy in respect of their claims under Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 10
(art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 10) and that they were therefore victims of a violation of
Article 13 (art. 13), which provides as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 and Article 10
(art. 13+6-1, art. 13+10)
109. The Commission expressed the opinion, which was not contested by
the applicants before the Court, that: