June-August 2024

With this compilation, the European Prison Litigation Network, its members and partners across Europe aim to inform national lawyers and civil society organisations about the most important legal developments on prison issues. We hope it enables you to better identify European trends and use them in your legal practice.
It covers 14 European Union Member States as well as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the United Kingdom and Russia.

CONTENTS >> DISCIPLINE, HEALTH, LENGTH OF DETENTION, LGBTIQA+, LIFE IMPRISONMENT, MATERIAL DETENTION CONDITIONS, NGO/NHRI, PRISON STAFF, PRISON SUBCULTURE, PRISONS IN WARTIME, PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, PROTESTS, REGIME, SOCIAL RIGHTS, SUICIDE, Torture and Ill-treatment, Women

BELGIUM ■ In June 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court (Conseil d’État) ruled that Belgian law doubly restricts the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in prisons. Firstly, an initial sanction of solitary confinement can only be extended as the result of a new disciplinary procedure and if the alleged offence involves serious harm to the physical integrity of a person. Secondly, if such an extension is granted under these conditions, the total period of solitary confinement may in no case exceed 45 days (Judgment No. 260.166 of 18 June 2024).

Under Belgian law, disciplinary solitary confinement can last up to 30 days. This can be extended if a prisoner causes serious harm to the physical integrity of another person during the period of isolation. The law limits this extension, stating that solitary confinement cannot “exceed 45 days as a result of successive decisions”. For a long time, the prison administration interpreted this as allowing the extension of solitary confinement even for non-physical disciplinary offences, but as being limited to 30 days. This interpretation was endorsed by the French-speaking Complaints Commission, the judicial body responsible for prison disputes.

The case decided by the Supreme Administrative Court concerned a prisoner who had been given two disciplinary sanctions – the first of 9 days’ solitary confinement and the second of 20 days’ solitary confinement for an offence involving no physical harm. The decisions were upheld by the competent Complaints (December 2022) and Appeal Commissions (February 2023). The Supreme Administrative Court overturned this decision. Consequently, in a subsequent decision, the Complaints Commission ruled that since the prisoner had not been punished for causing physical harm, extending solitary confinement was not permissible, declared the sanction of 20 days’ solitary confinement unlawful and annulled it.

ITALY ■ In August 2024, the NGO Associazione Luca Coscioni filed administrative complaints to the 102 local health administrations (azienda sanitaria locale, ASL) responsible for providing health services in the country’s 189 prisons. It argues that the ASL are failing to provide a satisfactory level of health services and carry out inspections of the hygienic and prophylactic conditions in which they are provided.

The alleged failures include bureaucratic difficulties and long wait times for inmates to book specialist examinations in local hospitals, delays in providing supplies and medicines when they are urgently needed, and a low level of assistance inside prisons (due in particular to an insufficient number of doctors and nurses assigned to prison health services by the responsible ASL.)

A planned next step is to forward the complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s office. In this case, investigations are expected to be carried out by the regional prosecutor’s offices and may lead to different outcomes depending on the type of responsibility or criminal liability found for each ASL.

MOLDOVA ■ In June 2024, the Ministry of Justice adopted an updated “Regulation on the Procedure for Medically Examining Severely Ill Prisoners for their Application for Release from their Sentence or the Replacement or Revocation of Pre-Trial Detention” with the aim of speeding up the process releasing severely ill prisoners early. This regulation, which is part of a wider prison reform, was prompted by a recent ECtHR judgment concerning a prisoner who died in pre-trial detention due to inadequate medical care and the lack of a release mechanism for seriously ill detainees.

Under the new regulation, one committee (the Medical Advisory Council of the prison administration) will review applications for the release of seriously ill prisoners, instead of three. If the this reveals that a prisoner suffers from an illness that is incompatible with continued detention, a report shall contain a clinical diagnosis and indicate whether it is on the list of illnesses that preclude detention. The council’s report will be submitted to the prison administration, which within five days of receiving it, submits an application to the competent court or prosecutor for the release of the seriously ill prisoner or for the replacement or revocation of their pre-trial detention.

PORTUGAL ■ In June 2024, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon ruled that the use of handcuffs on a prisoner without a security or medical justification during a psychiatric examination places that person in an inferior position, which may affect the results of the exam and lead to the invalidity of the evidence gathered.

The case concerned a prisoner who had undergone a psychiatric examination at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine. He complained that he was handcuffed during the exam and that it only lasted for 10 minutes. He also challenged the decision to refuse to carry out a new or repeated psychiatric examination.
The court recalled that in the context of a medical-legal examination, the use of handcuffs is acceptable only if it is absolutely necessary for medical or security reasons (for example, when the person has a tendency to self-mutilate, or to prevent a possible escape, aggression against third parties, or damage to material goods). The unjustified use of handcuffs could be considered as a violation of the dignity and moral integrity of the persons examined and considered inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR.
The court argued that handcuffing places the person under examination in a situation of objective diminution, fragility, dehumanisation and humiliation, with possible repercussions on their biological-psychological equilibrium, and consequently interfere with the exam and influence its results, especially in the case of a psychiatric exam.

In these circumstances, the evidence gathered in this way may be considered inadmissible under Article 126(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and reservations arise as to the fairness of the proceedings in the light of Article 6(1) ECHR.
In the specific case, it was unclear whether the defendant was handcuffed throughout the psychiatric examination. The Court of Appeal therefore ordered a new psychiatric exam by three experts, excluding the expert who had participated in the previous exam.

Also in Portugal, in July 2024, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon rejected an application for early release by a 79-year-old prisoner suffering from an evolving and irreversible disease. The court recalled that adjusting a sentence for health reasons is an exceptional mechanism to be used when the prisoner’s health has deteriorated “to such an extent that it is no longer possible to serve the sentence in prison without further aggravating his condition, thereby affecting his dignity as a human being”. It added that “the foreseeability of a deterioration in the prisoner’s general state of health and/or level of dependency is not sufficient to conclude in advance that it is incompatible with his stay and treatment in prison” if the authorities find an adequate therapeutic response in prison that keeps him clinically stable.

CZECH REPUBLIC ■ In a decision issued in March 2024 and published in June 2024, the Constitutional Court clarified the method of calculating days spent under house arrest (as an alternative to pre-trial detention, see Section § 73 para. 3 of the Code of Penal Procedure) for the purpose of deducting them from the length of the sentence to be served (no. I. ÚS 2831/23). How this was counted had not been harmonised and rulings by Czech courts were inconsistent.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court concluded that only the time spent in the designated residence should be deducted from the sentence – not time spent at work or on personal leave. Therefore, lower courts will have to make an exact calculation of the hours the person spent in the designated residence and deduct them from the prison sentence imposed. It will therefore not be possible to apply a “one-to-one” ratio, i.e. count each calendar day (24 hours) of house arrest as one day of imprisonment.

PORTUGAL ■ In July 2024 the Court of Appeal of Lisbon ruled that when counting the number of days spent in detention, courts should take into account full 24-hour periods, regardless of the number of calendar days covered. This applies to prison sentences, detention on remand and home detention.
Consequently, a period of detention of less than 24 hours, even if it extends over two consecutive calendar days, can only result in one day being deducted from the sentence to be served.

POLAND ■ In July 2024, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) appealed to the Director General of the prison service to take action to ensure that the rights of transgender people in Polish prisons are respected. In its statement, HFHR pointed out that transgender people in Polish prisons are particularly vulnerable to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The foundation stressed that the prison service’s current practices deviate significantly from human rights standards, citing cases where transgender people have been denied appropriate underwear, subjected to prolonged isolation from other inmates, strip-searched by officers of the opposite sex, been spoken to in an offensive manner, or disciplined for growing their hair.
Furthermore, HFHR research shows that no Polish prison has implemented specific guidelines, instructions or solutions regarding incarcerated transgender people. This appeal follows the adoption of the first-ever ECtHR judgment on the situation of a transgender prisoner in Poland, in which HFHR intervened as a third party (W.W. v. Poland, no. 31842/20, 2024).
At the end of August 2024, the Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Director General of the prison service asking what action it planned to take in relation to this judgment.

GERMANY ■ In June 2024, the Higher District Court of Jena (Thuringia) overturned a decision by the District Court of Erfurt rejecting a lifer’s application for prison leave. The Higher District Court also set a precise calendar for prison leave to which this prisoner is entitled under an early release scheme in the two years before his release. In doing so, it followed a Federal Constitutional Court recommendation in previous cases and made the still rare connection between prison and sentence adjustment law.

The case concerned a 74-year-old prisoner who had been sentenced to life in 1993 for the attempted murder and sexual abuse of a five-year-old girl. The District Court’s Sentence Enforcement Chamber rejected his application for parole on the grounds that the prison administration, the external psychological therapist and an external psychiatrist expert identified a risk of reoffending after release. Furthermore, there were no specialised institutions with capacity to host him to reduce his estimated dangerousness. The applicant challenged this decision before the Higher District Court. The Higher District Court held that the applicant should be released on 30 June 2026 (unless new circumstances arise) and until then, his time in prison should be used to prepare for his release, including with accompanied and unaccompanied leaves and by transferring him to the open regime.  In particular, it ruled that the applicant should:

• Be granted at least two accompanied (and starting 1 October 2024, unaccompanied) prison leaves per month until 31 December 2024 to attend therapy outside prison;
• Be prepared to transfer to an open prison regime as early as 1 January 2025 (for an effective transfer no later than 1 May 2025) and that he should have at least four unaccompanied prison leaves per month during that period;
• Benefit from a long prison leave on 1 September 2025 in order to prepare for his release on 30 June 2026 and his placement in a specialised assisted living facility for people with addiction.

The court emphasised that since the prisoner’s depends on the evaluation of his dangerousness, he needs to benefit from prison leave to assess his behaviour in this context.
The court applied Criminal Procedural Code Section 454a para. 1, which states, “If the court orders a suspension of the enforcement of the remainder of a sentence of imprisonment at least three months before the date of release, the probation period is extended by the period between the entry into force of the decision on suspension and the release.”
According to Section 454a para. 2, such a decision can be revoked because of new facts or for public safety. However, if it is expected that no such new circumstances will materialise and the prisoner will be released without additional court decisions or (expert) evaluations.

Against this background, the court pointed out that the longer the sentence, the more the right to liberty must be considered. The prisoner in question has not had many leaves from prison. Since 2023, he had applied seven times for accompanied prison leaves, and not for unaccompanied prison leave. The Higher Regional Court stressed that the prison administration should work with the prisoner to facilitate these applications.

HUNGARY ■ In August 2024, the Budapest Metropolitan Court (Fővárosi Törvényszék), acting as an appellate court, granted a prisoner sentenced to life conditional release after 24 years in prison. This is a significant step, as the number of decisions granting conditional release has declined sharply since a tragedy involving a prisoner in 2019 (who was released on parole and killed his two children before committing suicide).

The 2024 case’s applicant had been sentenced to life with the possibility of early release after 20 years after being convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder committed with malice and with exceptional cruelty. He had applied for conditional release twice unsuccessfully before a court of first instance granted his request against the advice of the prison and probation authorities, who cited the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society.

The court found that the purpose of the sentence could be achieved without further imprisonment. In reaching this decision, the court gave considerable weight to the offender’s exemplary conduct over 24 years, including a discipline-free record, numerous commendations, stable employment whenever possible, participation in self-improvement courses, and letters of apology to the victim’s family accompanied by regular payments of restitution. The court also noted the offender’s stable financial situation and supportive family ties, which would facilitate his reintegration. He had saved a considerable amount of money in an escrow account and has a family to welcome him and support his return to society. The prosecutor’s office appealed, citing the prison and probation services’ opinion and the seriousness of the offence.

The Metropolitan Court rejected the prosecutor’s appeal, emphasising that the decision of conditional release cannot be based solely on the material gravity of the crime committed. This had already been duly taken into account by the sentencing court when it set the minimum term served before early release at 20 years; the applicant had already served 24 years.

LITHUANIA ■ In July 2024, Parliament adopted amendments to the Code of Execution of Sentences, which allows prisoners sentenced to life to be granted short-term prison leave (up to 10 days) in connection with the death of a relative, a serious illness that threatens a relative’s life, or a natural disaster that caused serious material damage to the convicted person or their relatives’ property. The amendments specify that when on leave, these prisoners must be escorted, handcuffed and electronically monitored. Previously, unlike those serving fixed-term sentences, prisoners sentenced to life could not benefit from such leave.
The amendments were adopted after the Constitutional Court ruled in June 2024 that this ban was contrary to the Constitution and its principle of the rule of law (see also a summary of the court decision in English).

MOLDOVA ■ In June 2024, amendments introduced the possibility of conditional release for prisoners sentenced to life after 25 years, instead of 30 years under the current legal framework. The reform includes the expanded use of alternatives to imprisonment and equal treatment between first-time and repeat offenders, especially those between 18 and 21 years’ old.

The bill was drafted by a working group of state institutions (the General Prosecutor’s Office, Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organised Crime and Special Cases, Supreme Court of Justice, Courts of Appeal, Ministry of Internal Affairs, National Anti-Corruption Centre, Intelligence and Security Service, and MPs), the Bar Association, and representatives from academia, civil society, and the Council of Europe.

This follows a workshop organised earlier this year, which concluded that the situation of lifers should be changed (see our December 2023 – February 2024 issue). In 2022, lifers held several demonstrations to protest their lack of access to legal mechanisms for release and the many restrictions they face (e.g., the lack of activities to promote their reintegration and rudimentary prison conditions).

BULGARIA ■ Administrative courts issued conflicting decisions on whether prison bed bug infestations constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. In June 2024, the Stara Zagora Administrative Court dismissed a prisoner’s claim that the Stara Zagora Prison was infested with cockroaches, bedbugs and rats. The court did not discuss whether this constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. It dismissed the claim solely on the basis that the prison had submitted invoices as proof that it had purchased and used insecticides (Decision No. 1983 of 13 June 2024 in Administrative Case No. 149/2024, not available online).

On the other hand, in July 2024, the Burgas Administrative Court awarded BGN 800 (EUR 400) in damages to a prisoner who complained that Burgas Prison was infested with bedbugs (the court rejected the prisoner’s other claims). The court found these allegations to be substantiated and considered them serious, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment (decision No. 5070 of 4 July 2024 in administrative case No. 2237/2023, not available online).

RUSSIA ■ In July 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled that certain provisions of the Pre-Trial Detention Act were unconstitutional on the grounds that they failed to define the standards of conditions in courthouse remand cells (No. 36-P). The applicant had sought non-pecuniary damages for frequent, short-term detention in unsatisfactory conditions in a “convoy cell” of less than one square meter. His claim was dismissed by the civil courts, which essentially held that the Pre-Trial Detention Act did not regulate the material standards of detention conditions in those cells. In light of this finding, the Constitutional Court urged the legislature to define the conditions of detention in courthouse remand cells and stated that domestic courts were not precluded from assessing the conditions of detention in such cells and finding them inadequate.

The ruling addresses a formal gap in domestic law, thereby enabling prisoners in Russia to seek redress in domestic courts for the widespread and systemic inhuman treatment to which they are routinely subjected. It is highly probable that the ECtHR will use this as a pretext to dismiss the relevant complaints against Russia en masse, advising applicants to exhaust domestic legal avenues pointed out by the Constitutional Court.

BULGARIA ■ In July 2024, the Sofia Administrative Court found that the Sofia Central Prison Group 1 yard (for prisoners sentenced to life, for serious crimes and those in disciplinary isolation) provided inadequate conditions and was impassable when it rained. The court ordered the Ministry of Justice to carry out renovations (ruling No. 10754 of 4 July 2024, in administrative case No. 3255/2024).

The court based its reasoning on an inspection report from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee it had commissioned in April 2024, which confirmed the prisoners’ allegations. The ability for courts to commission NGOs to conduct an inspection report has been available since 2017, as provided for in the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act (EPPTDA), which established a preventive remedy for inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. However, this was the first time a court made use of this possibility.

This is an important precedent for the Bulgarian system. It integrates human rights NGOs’ work monitoring prisons into the process of applying a preventive remedy of inhuman and degrading treatment.

PORTUGAL ■  In June 2024, the National Preventive Mechanism presented its 2023 activity report to the Assembly. In 2023, it carried out 44 monitoring visits, including at 17 prisons. The places visited were selected based on the outcome of previous visits, media reports and the content of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman.
The main areas of concern in the report include material conditions of detention (outdated official capacity, occupancy and infrastructure), security measures (video surveillance systems, emergency buttons, surveillance teams, searches of prisoners and accommodation), disciplinary procedures, investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, prisoners’ right to complain, health care, the prison regime (occupational activities, time outdoors, visits and contact with the outside world) and the situation of prisoners in vulnerable situations (due to nationality, age, mobility, disability or sexual orientation).

SPAIN ■ In June 2024, the Parliament’s Lower House adopted a draft bill to recognise prison officers as law enforcement officers by amending Article 80 of the Prison Law. The text was proposed by the Socialist Parliamentary Group. It passed the first legislative stage with 300 votes in favour, 14 against and 29 abstentions. It will now be referred to the relevant parliamentary committee and time will be given to table amendments to the text in whole or in part.

If approved, this would mean that prison officers’ statements and reports will have evidentiary value and will therefore be considered sufficient, unless proven otherwise, to take the appropriate decision in prison disciplinary proceedings. It would also mean that in cases where prison officers are sent to prison, they will be separated from other types of inmates. Finally, it would entail an obligation on the part of the administration to compensate prison officers for material or personal damage suffered as the result of the exercise of their profession, provided that there has been no malice or negligence.

MOLDOVA ■ In August 2024, the government organised a meeting on its “Action Plan for Aligning Correctional Facilities with European Standards and Combating Criminal Subculture for 2024-2027”.
The draft action plan includes measures such as the digitalisation of the management of prisoners’ files, increased protection of vulnerable categories of prisoners against victimisation and violence, the establishment of an operational group with law enforcement agencies to prevent and combat organised crime in prisons, the separation of high-risk, low-risk and first-time offenders, the creation of areas for inmates with special needs (treatment for addiction, mental health problems, violence, sexual offences).
The meeting was attended by national institutions (Ministry of the Interior, Council for the Prevention of Torture, the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases, National Administration of Penitentiaries, the National Probation Inspectorate, etc.), civil society (IRIS Public Association, the Regina Pacis Foundation) and UN Women.
The initiative was triggered by recent recommendations made by the CPT in its recent reports (see the CPT report on its 2022 visit, as well as the authorities’ response).

RUSSIA ■ In August 2024, in what has been described as the largest prisoner swap since the end of the Cold War, 24 prisoners were exchanged between Russia and the US and European countries.

The US, Germany, Poland, Slovenia and Norway have released and exchanged eight Russian nationals detained, charged or convicted in the US and EU for a variety of crimes, mostly committed as agents of Russia’s special services. Most notably, Vadim Krasikov, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for a heinous murder in the centre of Berlin was released. Russia and Belarus released 16 political prisoners, including several US and German citizens, such as journalists Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, and former US Marine Paul Whelan.

Russia also released Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Kremlin critic and Pulitzer Prize winner; Oleg Orlov, a human rights activist and co-chairman of Memorial; and Ilya Yashin, a close ally of Alexei Navalny who was originally supposed to be part of the deal; Sasha Skochilenko, a Russian protest artist; Liliya Chanysheva, Ksenia Fadeeva and Vadim Ostanin, members of Navalny’s headquarters in Russia; and Andrei Pivovarov, leader of the Open Russia movement. Russian political prisoners, including Yashin, Orlov and Chanysheva, immediately stated that they had not agreed to take part in the exchange and considered it a forced expulsion from their homeland.

HUNGARY ■ As of July 2024, a prison service directive allows certain prisoners to have brief physical contact with visitors at the beginning and end of their visits. This is only possible for those in the three least severe categories (out of five) used to classify prisoners under the new reward-punishment credit system determining prisoners’ detention regimes (see our December 2023-February 2024 issue).
This is a significant step in view of the restrictions imposed on visits, which until recently took place behind a floor-to-ceiling plexiglass wall preventing any contact. Following a ECtHR judgment (Takó and Visztné Zámbó v. Hungary, no. 82939/17, 2023) and coordinated action by NGOs, including the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, these plexiglass walls have already been dismantled or replaced by shorter barriers (see our March-May 2024 issue).

POLAND ■ In July 2024, the Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Director General of the prison service highlighting the problems faced by inmates wishing to marry. The commissioner reported that his office continued to receive complaints about the denial of permission to marry in detention centres.

In one case, the refusal was made without justification even though the couple wishing to marry were being held in the same institution. The commissioner argued that such actions by the prison service constituted excessive interference in the private lives of inmates.
The commissioner also drew attention to the practice of transferring inmates to other prisons shortly before their wedding date, as arranged with the Civil Registry Office. The Commissioner criticised the prison administration’s practice of delaying a decision on whether to allow a wedding to take place until the intention to marry has been demonstrated (for example, by the non-incarcerated partner submitting a statement confirming their desire to marry the inmate). According to the commissioner, the prison service does not have the power to require such statements from those wishing to marry, as this is the role of the Registrar’s Office.
Another issue raised was the requirement that the prisoner wear a prison uniform during the ceremony. The commissioner referred to a case where a prisoner had lost the right to wear private clothing as a result of a disciplinary sanction and was subsequently denied permission by the prison administration to marry in private clothing for security reasons.
Finally, the commissioner mentioned the refusal to allow the bride’s parents (who were not imprisoned) to attend the wedding and denial of visitation rights to the new spouse and children immediately after the ceremony.

In response to the commissioner’s concerns, the Director General of the prison service acknowledged some of the issues raised, such as the need to take account of a planned wedding when arranging the transfer of prisoners. However, the director argued that the situations described by the Ombudsman were marginal and did not warrant legislative action.

RUSSIA ■ In June 2024, amendments to Article 77 of the Criminal Executive Code were adopted, permitting sentenced prisoners held in remand prisons to receive short-term and conjugal visits (Federal Law No. 153-FZ). Sentenced prisoners may be held in remand prisons to allow them to participate in court hearings or investigative proceedings. Such visits must be authorised by an investigator or a court, which have virtually unfettered discretion in this matter.

UKRAINE ■ In August 2024, amendments to the internal regulations of penitentiary institutions extended the ability of some categories of prisoners (who serve their sentences in correctional centres) to use a mobile phone with any operating system (Android, iOS, etc.). The prison administration often refused the use of these mobile phones.
The amendments also clarified that “portable personal computers” are “laptops”, which will make it easier for specific categories of prisoners (those serving their sentences in correctional centres, minimum security penal colonies with reduced conditions of detention, and social rehabilitation units of penal colonies) to use laptops, as the prison administration often refused their use on the grounds that they were not “portable personal computers”.
Prisoners will also be allowed to receive electronic documents, which will be transferred by the prison administration either to the prisoner’s e-mail or USB drive.

BELGIUM ■  A law passed on 15 May 2024 that entered into force on 7 June 2024, limiting the powers of Complaints Commissions, the judicial body responsible for examining prisoners’ complaints about decisions by the prison director (Article 107 of the law of 15 May 2024). From now on, if a decision by the prison administration regarding the new special individual security regime (see “Regime” below) is annulled, a commission can no longer replace it with its own. It can only order the prison director to take a new decision considering the commission’s ruling within a period it determines. The commission can also limit itself to annulling the decision in whole or in part.

RUSSIA ■  In August 2024, amendments to the tax code were adopted, resulting in an increase in the minimum court fee for pecuniary claims (from RUB 400 (EUR 4) to RUB 4,000 (EUR 40)). Furthermore, court fees for non-pecuniary and administrative claims (filed to challenge the legality of state bodies’ decisions, actions or omissions) will also be increased tenfold, from RUB 300 to RUB 3,000. The fees for appeals and cassation appeals have been increased from RUB 150 to RUB 3,000, and for an appeal to the Supreme Court, the fee is now RUB 7,000.
A new court fee of RUB 10,000 has been introduced for applications seeking to reopen civil or administrative proceedings. This procedure is employed, for instance, to quash and review judicial acts in consequence of an ECtHR judgment (and, in a small number of cases, when treaty bodies establish violations of UN human rights treaties).
The substantial increases will undoubtedly prevent a significant number of economically disadvantaged plaintiffs from pursuing their cases. This includes prisoners whose monthly salaries in penal colonies rarely exceed 7,000 RUB (70 EUR), and who will now be deprived of unhindered access to the courts.

SPAIN ■  In May 2024, the prison administration adopted instruction 2/2024 ordering that all prisons provide a space for prisoners and their lawyers to meet without physical barriers and to use laptops, provided they are used to work on legal matters and not to take photographs, make calls or send messages. Until then, communication between persons deprived of their liberty and their lawyers usually took place in special rooms where neither physical contact nor IT use was allowed.

In recent years, several court decisions have allowed this to change, allowing lawyers to carry a computer or tablet to facilitate the exchange and consultation of documents and viewing of digitised documents. In 2022, legislation reflected this change and the Prison Regulations, introduced by Royal Decree 268/2022, included the possibility that “communication with defence lawyers may be carried out through the use of information and communication technologies and videoconferencing systems, depending on the material and technical possibilities of each penitentiary centre” (art. 41.8 PR). With the adoption of Instruction 2/2024, this is now enforceable in all prisons under the control of the Central Prison Administration.

The Bar Associations have welcomed this decision. The head of the Public Defence Service of the Madrid Bar Association stated that it was “a measure that satisfies a historical demand of the legal profession, on the one hand, to be able to maintain maximum contact with clients and, on the other, to be able to carry all the documentation on a computer or tablet to prepare for trials, which undoubtedly strengthens the right to defence”.

Instruction 2/2024 specifies the checks and controls lawyers will be subject to before and after meetings. It also specifies that meetings will only be visually monitored by a prison officer. Lawyers interested in this option must inform the prison “with sufficient notice” so that a specific date can be set or their request will be refused (and state why). The authorised computer equipment must remain switched off until the lawyer has entered the meeting room, and switched off again after the meeting before they leave the room. This type of communication shall not be authorised in the case of prisoners whose communications may be intercepted pursuant to a judicial decision.

RUSSIA ■ Two incidents of prison unrest including hostage-taking occurred in June and August 2024. The first occurred at the Rostov-on-Don remand prison No. 1. Six prisoners escaped from their cells, took two prison officers’ hostage and demanded a vehicle to facilitate their escape from the facility. Negotiations were unsuccessful. During the subsequent storm, four of the six captors were killed, resulting in the release of the hostages. It is reported that the perpetrators of the riot were supporters of the Islamic State and had been convicted of terrorism.

The second incident occurred in the strict regime colony No. 19 in the Volgograd Region. During a disciplinary commission hearing, four prisoners took prison officers hostage. These four prisoners and four guards were killed during the incident, with several other prison staff requiring hospitalisation. The rioters asserted their affiliation with ISIS and sought retribution for the brutal treatment of several suspects accused of the terrorist attack on Crocus Hall in Moscow.

According to experts, these events are indicative of the structural deficiencies inherent in the Russian penitentiary system, including the prevalence of corruption among prison staff and their brutality towards prisoners. They argued that the Penitentiary Service failed to learn lessons from the first attack (and from similar riots in the past) and took inadequate measures, including forcibly shaving Muslim prisoners.

BELGIUM ■ A law passed on 15 May 2024, which entered into force on 7 June 2024, created the “special individual security regime” subcategory (régime de sécurité particulier individuel) for inmates who represent a “real and serious” security risk due to their links with organised crime and drug trafficking (Articles 105-106). If justified by the specific circumstances, placement under this strict regime may involve measures that do not apply in the case of an “ordinary” special individual security regime. Firstly, permanent camera surveillance, which, according to the law, ensures respect for the human dignity of the inmate. The impact of this permanent surveillance on prisoners’ mental health must be regularly monitored, at least during medical visits. Secondly, such prisoners may be excluded from the right of visitation and/or intimate visitation.

The decision to place a prisoner under this regime is taken by the director of the prison administration, after consultation with the Federal Public Prosecutor or intelligence services. Unlike the “ordinary” special individual security regime, it does not require a recommendation from the prison director. However, the law grants prisoners the right to present their defence, with the assistance of a lawyer if they so wish, during a hearing with the prison director.

SPAIN ■ In July 2024, the prison administration adopted Instruction 4/2024 to regulate and homogenise open regime living arrangements (modalidades de vida) given the diversity of organisational criteria. Open regime prisoners served their sentences in so-called Social Integration Centres and Open Sections (Centros de Inserción Social y Secciones Abiertas, known by their acronym CIS). Until now, the organisational and operational rules governing the living conditions of prisoners in the open regime (prepared by Treatment Boards, collegial bodies made up of doctors, lawyers, psychologists, social workers and educators) had to be approved by the Board of Directors of each CIS.

The instruction creates four open regime categories that will apply to all CIS: “Normalisation”, “Integration”, “Adaptation”, and “Observation”.

• “Normalisation” concerns most prisoners in the open regime. It has the fewest restrictions (e.g. weekend prison leaves extends from 16:00 on Friday to 08:00 on Monday; on weekdays a sufficiently broad schedule of daily outings from early morning to late afternoon should be established so that prisoners can engage in activities that facilitate their social, vocational, educational and therapeutic integration, as well as care for relatives).
• “Integration” allows prisoners to enjoy regular and daily outings for training, part-time work, family care or therapeutic activities. However, due to specific individual circumstances (lack of sufficient economic resources, or for treatment, personal or social reasons), they are not placed in the “normalisation” category and must comply with certain specific conditions (e.g. weekend prison leaves extend from 09:00 on Saturday to 09:00 on Monday).
• “Adaptation” includes prisoners with a disability that hinders their social integration and requires special supervision and support (e.g. weekends are slightly shorter than for the other categories: from 09:00 on Saturday to 21:00 on Sunday).
• “Observation” is applied in exceptional circumstances, as all outings to the outside world are restricted. It is intended for inmates who show a clear regression in their social reintegration. Given its exceptional nature, the stay in this modality is limited to the least time necessary. The Treatment Board evaluates the decision and decides on its continuation.

Any new assignment to a living arrangement, as well as any change shall be duly justified to and communicated to the person concerned, with the express indication that they may appeal to the Penitentiary Supervision Court if they disagree. Within one year of its entry into force, the prison administration will evaluate the instruction’s implementation and effectiveness. 

GERMANY ■ In June 2023, North Rhine-Westphalia adopted a draft law aiming to change the remuneration system for prisoners employed in prisons. This initiative follows a recent ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, which found the system to be unconstitutional (see our June-August 2023 issue). This draft is based on recommendations by a working group that was established shortly after the ruling was adopted (see our December 2023-February 2024 issue). North Rhine-Westphalia is the first to start amending its law.

The draft maintains the “net principle”, according to which prisoners receive a wage and non-monetary benefits and do not have to pay for accommodation, food, etc. In contrast, the “gross principle” would mean that prisoners would receive a higher wage, comparable to that in the community, but would have to pay for accommodation, food, etc. in prison. The draft would increase prisoners’ remuneration by about 67% (representing 9-15% of the “reference value”, i.e. the average wage of all earners) and those held in preventive detention’s wage by about 38% (16-22% of the reference value). Importantly, the standard number of working hours per week, as well as wage levels, will be part of state prison law. They are currently defined by an executive regulation.

The draft also provides for compensation of up to 25% of the prison wage for periods of inability to work (e.g. for health protection measures, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic). Non-monetary compensation received by prisoners who work in prison, as a possible deduction of days served, will also increase (from 8 to 12 days for each year of work).

The draft law also introduces the possibility of deducting sums received as wages, either to pay debts prisoners owe to the state of North Rhine-Westphalia as a result of their criminal proceedings (5% of the monthly wage for every three months of uninterrupted work, in particular for assigned lawyers and psychiatric experts) or to compensate victims of their crimes (up to 50% of the previous amount).

Prisoners who through no fault of their own do not work will be paid “pocket money”, i.e. 1.8% of the reference value (approximately EUR 46 per month). This remains about the same as under the current system, except for a slight change in the way it is calculated.

The Federal Constitutional Court also called for the introduction of systemic review of work’s effects on prisoners’ social rehabilitation. The draft law extends the work of the “criminological service” (Kriminologischer Dienst), which already fulfils other tasks within the prison service, without specifying how the extended scope will be handled or financed.  

The Federal Working Group of Civil Society Offender Relief Organisations (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Strafgefangenenhilfe, BAG-S) criticised the draft law, stating that the opportunity has not been taken to bring the system of work in prisons closer to that in the outside world (higher pay, possibility to create/join trade unions, etc.).The statement also questions omitting large numbers of non-working prisoners (about 40 percent of all prisoners), since, according to the Federal Constitutional Court, the new renumeration system should be embedded into a larger social rehabilitation system; as well as the form of review, which does not include researchers from outside the prison system.

Also in Germany, In May 2024, the Left federal parliamentary group (Die Linke) asked the federal government whether, as part of the ongoing prison labour reform (see above), steps would be taken to include prisoners (including those in preventive detention) in the national pension scheme.

The federal government responded positively. It considers prison work an integral part of rehabilitation, and the inclusion of prisoners in the state pension scheme would complement and enhance their integration. However, it stressed that this is a question of who pays social security contributions and that the states were not prepared to take on this responsibility. The execution of prison sentences is states’ responsibility.

The government added that the working group set up after the Federal Constitutional Court ruling to plan the forthcoming reforms had not considered including prisoners in the national pension scheme (see our December 2023-February 2024 issue), as prisoners are to receive their remuneration according to the “net principle” (see above). The government’s response included figures on the proportion of prisoners working in each state.  Almost 59 per cent of all prisoners work in prison. This varies between 49 per cent in Saarland to around 67 per cent in Lower Saxony. No specific figures are available for preventive detention.

ITALY ■ As of 2 September 2024, 65 suicides were recorded among prisoners in Italy. This is 44% more than a year ago (45 suicides) and 12% more than in 2022 (58 suicides), until now the highest number of reported suicides since the 1990s (85). If this year’s trend is confirmed, 2024 will be a tragic year in this respect. Suicides also affect prison staff, with 7 deaths between January and August 2024 and several additional diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder.

This should be seen in the context of growing concerns about poor prison conditions and overcrowding in Italy, which negatively impact prisoners’ dignity and well-being, as highlighted by the NGO Antigone in a recent publication. According to official figures, the national overcrowding rate was 131.57% as of 2 September 2024 (61,796 prisoners and a total capacity of 46,967).

In this context, several civil society organisations (the Italian Association of Professors of Criminal Law, the Italian Association of Professors of Constitutional Law, and the “Gian Domenico Pisapia” Association for the Study of Criminal Procedure) signed a joint petition to the Italian parliament and government in June 2024, calling for legislative intervention to reduce the total number of people in prison (for example, by adopting a new amnesty law and increasing the use of alternatives to imprisonment and probation) and for new investments to ensure safe conditions of detention and access to effective health care in all prisons.

POLAND ■ In August 2024, the Ministry of Justice announced that it agreed with the approach proposed by the Commissioner for Human Rights, which argued in favour of a separate offence for the crime of torture in the Criminal Code. This was to ensure compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture, rather than merely criminalising acts that constitute torture, such as causing bodily harm. Furthermore, he stated that the ministry plans to provide input to the commission responsible for reforming the Criminal Code, with the objective of establishing torture as a sui generis offence.

Also in Poland, the Commissioner for Human Rights wrote the Ministry of Justice, calling for measures to change how injuries to prisoners are documented. According to the commissioner, the current method does not meet European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) standards or the Istanbul Protocol guidelines.
The commissioner highlighted concerns arising from the National Preventive Mechanism’s inspections of places of detention, including that not all detainees, particularly those transferred from other institutions, are medically screened upon admission, and that there are no clear procedures for handling information about suspected torture or other forms of violence. This can lead to errors and a lack of an appropriate response.
In addition, the documentation of injuries is often superficial. Injuries are usually recorded in detainees’ health records, but detention centres do not keep a register of or take photographs of them, and rarely use specific forms such as body maps to accurately document the location of injuries.

PORTUGAL ■  In June 2024, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) reported that during its 2023 visits, it came across a significant number of situations in which, despite allegations or evidence of ill-treatment of prisoners, no inquiry has been set up to investigate the underlying facts. This was the case at the Linhó Prison, Lisbon Judicial Police Prison, São João de Deus Prison Hospital, Monsanto Prison, Santa Cruz do Bispo Women’s Prison and the Porto Prison.
Several staff members admitted that they were not aware of procedures to report evidence or allegations of ill-treatment brought to their attention in the course of their duties to prison management.
The NPM also noted a lack of awareness of prison staff’s obligation to report all offences of which they become aware in the course of or by reason of their duties to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (pursuant to Article 242 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure).
During surprise visits to 16 prisons in 2023, the NPM found evidence of assaults on inmates and reported these directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Six of the eight complaints were supported by CCTV footage.

LITHUANIA ■ In June 2024, the Ombudsperson published a report on Panevėžys prison. For the past 60 years until the end of 2023, this prison was a women’s prison. Due to overcrowding in other facilities, a section of the prison (with a capacity of up to 10) was made available for men serving short sentences. At the time of the visit, 200 convicted prisoners were held in the prison (194 women and 6 men).

The report discloses systemic problems that have also been observed in prisons in other countries concerning a lack of staff, which impedes access to healthcare services, employment, education and other activities.

In particular, the report highlights deficiencies in the health care system. The shortage of medical staff has led to inadequate care, and some prisoners have admitted to self-harming to obtain a medical consultation. Furthermore, long-term addiction treatment, except for the methadone programme, were found to be inadequate – some prisoners stated they participated in the methadone programme because the alternative measures offered are insufficient and they suffer from relapses.

Funded by the European Union and the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Robert Carr Fund. Neither the European Union nor the Robert Carr Fund can be held responsible for them.