1. Disregarding the economic interests of prisoners is incompatible with the obligation under constitutional law to reintegrate them into society. Accordingly, the prison’s obligation to provide for the welfare of prisoners requires protecting their financial interests.
2. Telecommunications services do not have to be offered free of charge. However, this does not justify charging prisoners significantly more for these services than is usual outside prions, if it is not necessary due to requirements or conditions of the penal system making them more expensive.
3. If the prison has, in the context of statutory obligations, a private company provide services on which the prisoners depend without any alternatives that can be freely chosen within the framework of market conditions, it will have to ensure that the private service provider charges fair market prices.
4. In that respect, the contractual obligation of the prison to the provider is not decisive. A long contract period with the provider – even if it is common in the context of prisons – must not lead to the result that market developments of prices do not have, in the longer term, any impact on the prices the prisoners have to pay.
5. In the present case, the Higher Regional Court should not have explicitly left open the question whether the telephone rates were reasonable; the claim to adjust the telephone charges should not have been denied based on the contractual obligation with the telecommunications provider.