APPLICATION/REQUÊTE N" 11634/85 Franco SANTILLI v/ITALY Franco SANTILLI c/[TALI E DECISION of 10 Match 1989 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 10 mars 1989 sur la recevabilité de la requêt e Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention Monitoring of a bankrupt's correspondence hv the trustee in bankruptcy constitutes an interference with exereise of the right ta respect for correspondence. Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention Monitoring ofa bankrupt '.s correspondence . In this case, the interférence, in accordante with the lave, es considered neces,sacv jiu the protection of' the rights of' others and proportionne ta the aim pursued. Article 8 , paragraphe 1, de la Convention Le contrôle de la corre.spondunee d'un failli par le curateur de la faillite constitue une ingérence dans /'exerc'ice du droit au respect de la correspondance. Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Contrôle de la correspondance d'un failli. En l'espèce, l'ingérence, prévue par la loi, est considérée contente nécessaire a la protection des droits d'autrui et proportionnée au but visé . Summary of the relevant facts The applicant rias dcclared bankrupt in a decision of the Pescara Court dateil 26 June 1984. As a resuli of titis decision . the applicant lori the right m take legal proceedings and. for' all rnatters concerning the administration of his property, lie i .s represented be the receiver, in attardante with Article 42 of the Roval Decree No . 267 o/ /6 Marck /942 . Bv virtue of Article 48 of the Royal Decree, all correspondence addressed tu a hankrupt is sent to the receiver, rvho kas the right to keep correspondence concerning the hankrupt's property . The applicant allege.s a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the fast that his correspondence, even if private, is inspeeted hy the receiver . (TRANSLA TION) THE LAW (Extract) 1 . The applicant coniplains chat the tact that his correspondence was monitored because he had been declared hankrupt constitutes an infringement of the right Io respect for his correspondence. as safeguarded by Article 8 of the Convention . 83 This Article reads as follows : I . Everyone has the right to respect for . . . his correspondence . 2. There shah be no inlerference by a public authority with the exercise of ibis right except such as is in accordante with the law and is neeessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economie well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . " In This connection the Government objected that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, on the grounds tirai he did no( petition to the judge in charge of the bankruptcy . The Commission does no[ consider il necessary, in the present case, to decide whether such a petition can constitute a domestic remedy to bc exhausted within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention, since in any event ibis complaira is inadmissible on anothcr ground . Il emerges from the explanations provided by the parties that, under Article 48 of Royal Decrec No . 267 of 16 Match 1942, all correspondence sent Io the applicant is monitored by the recciver . The latter must, on penalty of criminal sanctions, kcep the content of the correspondence, insofar as it does net converti the bankrupt's property, secret . The bankrupt, on the other hand, has the right to sec al] the correspondence addressed tu him and may submit such complaints as he sees fit to the judge in charge and take legal proceedings against the actions of the receive r The Commission considers Chat the actions in dispute commune interference with the hankrupt's right - in this case the applicant's right - te respect for his correspondence. It notes, however, that ibis supervisory measure, which is prescribed by law, is designed to protect the creditors generally againsi any action on the part of the bankrupt that could jeopardisc recovery of the debts and is based on the need to protect the interests of others . The Commission further observes that such monitoring is not out of proportion Io the ami, in view, inter alfa, of the safeguards provided for under ttalian law against unreasonablc conduct on the part of the rccciver . The Commission notes, in this convection, [bat the applicant did net avait himself of any of lhese safeguards . The Commission considers that the supervision is therefore lustified under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention (cf. Ni . 8988/80, Dec. 103 .81, D .R . 24 p. 198 if.) insofar as it is designed to protect the rights of others . In conclusion, the Commission considers Chat the applicant's complaint is manifestly il]-founded and must be rejected in accordante with Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention. 84