Judgment Gullotti v. Italy - right to correspondence of prisoner detained under a special prison regime

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 178 (2025)   10.07.2025   Prisoner serving sentence for mafia-type offences: justification not provided   for renewing restriction on his right to correspondence   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Gullotti v. Italy (application no. 64753/14) the European   Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human   Rights.   The case concerned a prisoner serving a sentence for mafia-type offences and his complaint about   the renewal of restrictions on the people with whom he had been allowed to correspond. He is   imprisoned under a special regime introduced to sever contact between detainees and their criminal   networks.   The relevant law provided that limitations on prisoners’ correspondence had to be reasoned and   time-limited. However, there had been no explicit and autonomous assessment of the need to limit   Mr Gullotti’s correspondence to only relatives admitted for family visits and there had therefore   been insufficient evidence for the renewal of the restriction on his rights.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link)   Principal facts   The applicant, Giuseppe Gullotti, is an Italian national who was born in 1960 and is currently   detained in Parma Prison after his conviction for mafia-type offences.   Mr Gullotti was arrested in 1998 and imprisoned under a special regime provided for in section   41 bis of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975 (“the Prison Administration Act”) with restrictions on visits,   using the telephone, monitoring of incoming and outgoing correspondence, and going outdoors. In   addition to the limitations imposed by the special prison regime, Mr Gullotti’s right to   correspondence was limited to only relatives admitted for family visits.   Limitations on detainees’ correspondence are concretely applied by judicial order under section 18   ter of the Prison Administration Act.   In January 2013 the limitation on the number of people with whom Mr Gullotti could correspond   was renewed. The decision, referring to documents contained in the “dossier concerning the   applicant”, justified the limitation on his rights by his prominent role within the mafia-type   organisation Cosa Nostra.   Mr Gullotti challenged this decision unsuccessfully. In particular, in March 2014 the Court of   Cassation declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible, finding that the restriction on his right   to correspondence was justified.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), Mr Gullotti alleged that the   January 2013 order renewing the restrictions on the people with whom he could correspond and   subsequent decisions by the courts in the appeal proceedings had not been adequately reasoned.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 September 2014.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Davor Derenčinović (Croatia),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that there was no dispute that limiting the number of people with whom   Mr Gullotti could correspond had interfered with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   It also found that that interference had had a legal basis under domestic law, namely section 18 ter   of the Prison Administration Act, which provided that limiting prisoners’ correspondence had to be   reasoned and given a time-limit.   Moreover, such an interference had been intended to protect public order and national security and   to prevent disorder and crime. Specifically in Mr Gullotti’s case, it had aimed to prevent him from   giving instructions to the criminal organisation to which he belonged.   The Court went on to note that Section 18 ter of the Prison Administration Act required that limiting   prisoner’s correspondence be assessed explicitly and autonomously. In the present case it found   that the authorities had relied only on brief and general arguments to justify the limitation on   people with whom the applicant could correspond.   Against this background, the Court concluded that there had been insufficient evidence in the   reasoning of the January 2013 order to justify the renewal of the restriction on Mr Gullotti’s right to   correspondence, in violation of Article 8.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that a finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any   non-pecuniary damaged sustained by Mr Gullotti.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   2 We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3