This compilation gathers the most important judgments and decisions on prison issues handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By reporting on the main trends in European prison case law, it aims to support legal practitioners in the prison field in their research and litigation, as well as to identify blind spots in the European case law to build strategic litigation avenues.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
APRIL 2024 >>
MEHENNI (ADDA) v. SWITZERLAND ■ Application no. 40516/19
Preventive detention ordered on the basis of a psychiatric report revealing severe mental disorder, after the completion of the initial prison sentence, and with no causal link with the initial conviction: violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), violation of Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7.
Detention of a person “of unsound mind” in a facility where no appropriate therapeutic treatment could be provided: violation of Article 5 § 1 (e)
MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA ■ Applications nos. 19124/21 and 20085/21
LAZĂR v. ROMANIA ■ Application no. 20183/21
No evidence showing a real risk of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole in the event of the applicant’s extradition to, and conviction in, the United States: manifestly ill-founded (Article 3).
Lawfulness of applicants’ detention with a view to extradition and surrender: no violation of Article 5 § 1 (f).
Review of lawfulness of detention subsequent to extradition decisions: manifestly ill-founded (Article 5 § 4).
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV) ■ Applications no. 39611/18
Administrative practices implemented by Russia stemming from “borderisation” between breakaway regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and the Georgian government-controlled territory resulting in multiple Convention violations.
Inadequate detention conditions and ill-treatment in detention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, failure to conduct an effective investigation: violation of Article 3.
Unlawful arrest and detention, lack of basis for assuming that there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: violation of Art 5 § 1.
Other complaints: violation of Article 2 and Article 8, violation of Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
KHATYPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 47699/19 and 25 others
Permanent video surveillance in prison cells, including by opposite-sex operators, in lavatory and shower rooms and in disciplinary cells: violation of Article 8.
VOLOSHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 52019/19 and 52 others
VANYUTA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 45337/19 and 54 others
SUNTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 58032/19 and 47 others
GORBUNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 46924/19 and 49 others
Inadequate conditions of transport: violation of Article 3.
LEROY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE ■ Applications nos. 32439/19 and 2 others
Preventive remedy effective in principle for rectifying demeaning detention conditions following an industrial action in prison: applications partly inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies).
Daily body searches by masked Special Security Teams for two to three weeks following an industrial action in prison: no violation of Article 3.
Prisoners confined to their cells 24 hours a day for some 20 days during an industrial action in prison; lack of access to the exercise yard or to fresh air and natural light; deprivation of contact with the outside world (phone calls, family visits, meetings with their lawyers): violation of Article 3.
Effectiveness of preventive remedy for rectifying poor detention conditions during industrial action in prison: no violation of Article 13.
GYENGE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 62122/19 and 19 others
Life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after long periods of time (between 26 years and five months and 48 years and one month): violation of Article 3.
MAY 2024 >>
MAISAIA v. GEORGIA ■ Application no. 75969/14
Ill-treatment as part of large-scale and systematic ill-treatment of prisoners; failure to conduct an effective investigation: violation of Article 3 (substantive and procedural limbs).
CRĂCIUN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA ■ Applications nos. 512/21 and 4 others
Refusal to allow prisoners to attend the funerals of close family members: violation of Article 8.
MAFALANI v. CROATIA ■ Application no. 3646/17
Prisoner placed in relative isolation for 11 months (alone in a cell, without the right to communicate with other inmates or have access to television or print media, but allowed daily one-hour outside walks and visits from his family and his lawyers): manifestly ill-founded (Article 3).
Unlawful monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer: violation of Article 8.
JUNE 2024 >>
WICK v. GERMANY ■ Application no. 22321/19
Non-review of the merits of a prisoner’s applications against his repeated transfers at short notice from one prison to another and the measures of solitary confinement and video surveillance: violation of Article 6 § 1 (civil limb).
MAĻINOVSKIS v. LATVIA ■ Application no. 46084/19
Ineffective investigation into a prisoner’s allegations of violence used against him by prison guards: violation of Article 3 (procedural limb).
YANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 35773/18 and 8 others
KIRILLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 11439/21 and 23 others
Inadequate treatment provided to prisoners with serious health conditions (lack of teeth, gastritis, amputated foot, retinal dystrophy and disinsertion of both eyes, HIV, hepatitis, hernia, tuberculosis, jaw osteomyelitis, urogenital system diseases, etc.): violation of Article 3.
Lack of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Article 13.
ŞAMASAS AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 20371/19 and 10 others
Uploading of prisoners’ correspondence onto a national server regulated by unpublished internal regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
NIȚU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ■ Application no. 11272/16
Inadequate medical care provided to a prisoner with mental health disorders exacerbating his condition; repeated use of force and disciplinary actions in response to his regular attempts at self-mutilation and other aggressive acts; lack of a comprehensive medical strategy: violation of Article 3.
TACZMAN AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 30127/20 and 20 others
HORVÁTH AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 33640/20 and 24 others
Life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after long periods of time (between 25 years 6 months and 42 years 11 months): violation of Article 3.
TEMPORALE v. ITALY ■ Application no. 38129/15
Continued detention of a prisoner with a disability rate of 100% (chronic delusional psychosis and several somatic health issues): no violation of Article 3.
Government not submitting a legal expert report within the timeframe set by the Court but submitting it before it had ruled on the admissibility and merits of the application: no violation of Article 38.
NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN ■ Application no. 8826/20
Inspection of a prisoner’s lawyer’s documents before and after his meeting with his client by prison staff in the absence of any suspicion of wrongdoing; lack of adequate safeguards protecting the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications against abuse or arbitrariness: violation of Article 8.
BECHI v. ROMANIA ■ Application no. 45709/20
Poor detention conditions compensated by open and semi-open detention regime and sufficient personal space: no violation of Article 3.
Segregation of a HIV-positive prisoner in a separate sector with no contact with other HIV-negative inmates, and with limited possibilities to engage in work or activities: no violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14.
Prisoner transferred to prisons located 500 km to 800 km away from his family residence: manifestly ill-founded (Article 8).
UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA) ■ Application nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18
Administrative practices implemented by Russia in occupied Crimea, resulting in a multiple of violations of the Convention.
Enforced disappearances and lack of effective investigation: violation of Article 2.
Ill-treatment and lack of investigation; inadequate conditions of detention: violation of Article 3.
Transfer of prisoners from Crimea to Russia: violation of Article 8.
Unacknowledged and incommunicado detention: violation of Article 5.
Unlawful deprivation of liberty, prosecution and conviction: violation of Article 5 and Article 7, violation of Article 10 and Article 11.
Other aspects of the judgment disclose a violation of Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, Article 14, Article 18, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, Article 2 of Protocol no. 4.
Extension of the application of Russian law to Crimea since 2014 contravening the Convention as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law and depriving the impugned measures of a legal basis.
Respondent Government not responding to the Court’s letters or specific requests for documents, evidential material or additional observations, and not participating in the hearing: violation of Article 38.
Article 46: the respondent State must take every measure to secure, as soon as possible, the safe return of the relevant prisoners transferred from Crimea to penal facilities located in the territory of the Russian Federation.
RYBAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 83322/17 and 2 others
Inadequate conditions of transport (overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, etc.): violation of Article 3.
In partnership with:
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.
