A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.
199. Similarly, the Court finds it unacceptable in principle that a prison guard was present during family visits (compare Khoroshenko, cited above, § 146). It is clear that the guard was there specifically in order to monitor what the family discussed, given that they were at risk of having the visit cancelled if they did not speak a language he understood (see paragraph 44 above). Again, no explanation has been given as to why the visits had to be monitored so closely.
200. The Court therefore finds that,regardless of whether there was a legal basis for the interference with the applicant’s rights, the restriction on prison visits from his parents did not comply with the other conditions set out in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
201. Turning now to the applicant’s complaint that he was not allowed to see Pastor Per Bergene Holm, the Court reiterates that the authorities’ refusal to allow a prisoner to meet a priest constitutes interference with the rights guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention (see, for instance, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine,no. 38812/97, § 167, ECHR 2003‑V).
203. Again, it is not clear whether there was a legal basis for the refusal to allow visits, and no reasons have been advanced to justify the refusal. The Court considers that it has not been shown that the interference with the applicant’s right pursued a legitimate aim or was proportionate to that aim, as required under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention.