A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.CASE-OF-SZULUK-v.-THE-UNITED-KINGDOM
53. In light of the severity of the applicant’s medical condition, the Court considers that uninhibited correspondence with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition should be afforded no less protection than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP. In so finding, the Court refers to the Court of Appeal’s concession that it might, in some cases, be disproportionate to refuse confidentiality to a prisoner’s medical correspondence and the changes that have since been enacted to the relevant domestic law. The Court also has regard to the submissions of the applicant on this point, namely that the Government have failed to provide sufficient reasons why the risk of abuse involved in correspondence with named doctors whose exact address, qualifications and bona fides are not in question should be perceived as greater than the risk involved in correspondence with lawyers.
54. In view of the above, the Court finds that the monitoring of the applicant’s medical correspondence, limited as it was to the prison medical officer, did not strike a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence in the circumstances.