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 European case law to build strategic litigation avenues.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA ■ Application no. 51448/15
Unilateral declaration submitted by the authorities not containing an undertaking to reopen the investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s son; amount of compensation proposed not consistent with the amount that the Court would award in respect of just satisfaction in a similar case: Government’s request for the application to be struck out rejected (Article 37 § 1).
Ineffective investigation into the applicant’s son’s death while in detention; refusal of the authorities to involve the applicant in the investigations; lack of public scrutiny of the investigations: violation of Article 2 (procedural).
Ineffective investigations not able to account for the applicant’s son’s death while in detention and under the exclusive control of the authorities: violation of Article 2 (substantive).
Court unable to conclusively establish the existence of an effective mechanism for establishing any institutional liability on the part of State bodies for a breach of Article 2 if the relevant domestic proceedings did not end in prosecution and/or a conviction; amount of potential compensation constituting insufficient redress: violation of Article 13.
URAZALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 30580/21 and 30 others
Permanent video surveillance, including by opposite-sex operators, in prison cells and in lavatory and shower rooms: violation of Article 8.
PULYALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 1058/17 and 10 others
KUCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 3234/17 and 12 others
DEGTYAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 19573/21 and 10 others
Inadequate conditions of detention of prisoners under strict imprisonment regime: violation of Article 3.
GÜLMEZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 27499/20 and 6 others
Seizure of manuscripts by the prison administration (works of fiction, personal diary, poetry book, personal notebook): violation of Article 10.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA ■ Application no. 51448/15 ■ Fifth Section ■ 9 January 2025
Art 37 ■ Unilateral declaration not containing an undertaking to reopen the investigation concerning the death in detention of the applicant’s son ■ Amount of compensation proposed not consistent with the amount the Court would award for just satisfaction in a similar case ■ Respect for human rights requiring examination to be continued
Art 2 (procedural and substantive) ■ Life ■ Insufficient and inadequate investigation into circumstances of death and into any potential responsibility on the part of particular individuals or authorities ■ Applicant not associated with the investigation ■ Lack of public scrutiny ■ Failure to provide satisfactory and convincing explanation for death
Art 13 (+ Art 2) ■ Lack of an effective remedy ■ Court unable to conclusively establish the existence of an effective mechanism for establishing any institutional liability on the part of State bodies for a breach of Art 2 if the relevant domestic proceedings did not end in prosecution and/or a conviction ■ Amount of potential compensation constituting insufficient redress
Facts ■ The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son while being held in custody, and the ensuing investigation. The applicant’s son (Mr H. Movsisyan) was found dead by hanging in November 2012 in a detention centre of the unrecognised “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (the “NKR”).
In June 2011, aged 18, Mr Movsisyan was drafted into the Armenian army, although, according to the applicant, he had health issues incompatible with military service. A month later, following several incidents (including an episode of self-harm and an attempt of evasion of military service), Mr Movsisyan underwent a military-medical examination, was diagnosed with “an organic psychopathic-like disorder [and] non-adaptive decompensation with attempted suicide” (§ 12) and discharged from military service.
In the meantime, in July 2011, the Ministry of Defence took the decision to institute criminal proceedings against Mr Movsisyan for aggravated evasion of military service (with self-mutilation). In July 2012, Mr Movsisyan was arrested and detained on remand at the investigative isolation unit of a police-run detention facility in Shushi, in Nagorno-Karabakh. An expert commission appointed by the Ministry of Health concluded there was a lack of psychiatric illness of Mr Movsisyan, who could therefore be held accountable for his actions. On 20 November 2012, Mr Movsisyan was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. A week later, on 28 November 2012, Mr Movsisyan was found dead at the Shushi detention centre.
Law ■ Government’s request to have the application struck out under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention
The Court observed that the case concerned the State’s obligation under Article 2 to account for the loss of life within the context of deprivation of liberty, both under its substantive and procedural limbs. It also recalled that the unilateral declaration procedure is meant to be exceptional and that “when it comes to breaches of the most fundamental rights contained in the Convention, […it] is not intended to allow the Government to escape their responsibility for such breaches” (§ 93).
Furthermore, the Court observed that the unilateral declaration submitted does not contain an undertaking to reopen the investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s son, and found the amount of compensation proposed was not consistent with the amount that it would award in respect of just satisfaction in a similar case.
Consequently, it rejected the Government’s request for the application to be struck out.
Law ■ Admissibility
On its own motion, the Court examined the Armenian authorities’ jurisdiction over the NKR. It recalled that it had already found Armenia’s jurisdiction over the NKR with respect to the detention and conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness (Avanesyan v. Armenia, no. 12999/15, §§ 31-38, 20 July 2021). It also observed that the facts took place before the changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the Nagorno‑Karabakh war (2020) and the exodus of the Armenian population following the nine-month long blockade of the region and the subsequent actions of Azerbaijan. It also recalled its long-standing position that “persons in custody and persons undergoing military service are similarly considered to be under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State” (§ 101, see Boychenko v. Russia, no. 8663/08, § 77, 12 October 2021).
The Court therefore concluded that there was a jurisdictional link between Armenia and the applicant’s deceased son on the grounds that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories at the material time.
Law ■ Article 2
General principles: Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, 26 June 2000 and Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, 27 July 2004 (on the authorities’ duty to protect persons in custody); Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, § 113, 31 January 2019 (on the detention of persons suffering from a mental illness); Lapshin v. Azerbaijan, no. 13527/18, § 94, 20 May 2021 (on the burden of proof resting on the authorities); Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 26562/07 and 6 others, § 586, 13 April 2017 (on the strong inferences drawn by the Court when the authorities are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it); Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 88, 5 July 2005; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 325, 17 September 2014 and S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, § 314, 25 June 2020 (on the obligation to carry out an effective investigation).
(a) Procedural limb
The Court noted that there had been three investigations – two criminal investigations and one internal investigation.
The first criminal investigation (by the NKR authorities) was conducted with the requisite diligence and without unjustified delay, but the applicant had not been informed of it and could therefore not participate in it. Furthermore, it noted that the conclusion of the investigation into the circumstances of Mr Movsisyan’ death “ relied purely on the statements […] of the implicated detention centre officers without any thorough analysis of other evidence, including the statements of H. Movsisyan’s cell-mates, reconstruction of the incident and so on” (§ 130). Furthermore, the investigation did not establish whether the prison’s authorities were aware of Mr Movsisyan’ state of health and whether they took any steps to mitigate the risk of self-harm. Lastly, the Court noted that the decision to terminate the investigation “does not contain any references whatsoever to important issues – including: the time and circumstances of the discovery of the body; how long it took for the officers to open the door to the cell and to free the body; the exact time when an emergency call was placed and when the ambulance arrived; the details concerning the emergency medical assistance provided […]; or any other medical records concerning H. Movsisyan’s state of health (including his mental health) during his stay at the detention facility in question” (§ 134). The Court concluded that the circumstances of Mr Movsisyan’s death were not ascertained.
The second investigation (by the Armenian authorities) was opened ten days after the termination of the first investigation (18-28 March 2013). The Court was only provided with the decision to terminate this investigation in December 2013, which did not contain any information on the evidence gathered. In this context, the Court declared it cannot “consider the conclusions of the investigation carried out […] to be sufficiently reliable” (§ 142). The Court observed that the domestic courts who carried out a judicial review of the decision to terminate the investigation upheld its finding without having at their disposal the evidence either.
The Court also noted that the applicant had not been associated with this investigation either. During both investigations, she was denied access to documents on the grounds that she was not a party to the relevant proceedings, and had to seek court orders to be provided with the documents in question (the applicant was eventually only provided with a very limited amount of material, § 144). In the Court’s view “the persistent refusal of the investigating authorities […] to involve the applicant in the investigation – or even to provide information about the relevant criminal proceedings – deprived her of the opportunity to safeguard her legitimate interests” (§ 146), and deprived the investigation of public scrutiny.
The Court concluded that the investigation had been ineffective.
(b) Substantive limb
The Court observed that due to shortcomings in the investigation carried out, the circumstances of Mr Movsisyan’s death could not be established. It declared it cannot “accept [the investigation’s] findings (even with reservations) and to make its assessment based on the facts as established during those investigations” (§ 159).
It concluded accordingly that the authorities were unable to provide an explanation for the death of the applicant’s son while he was under the authorities’ exclusive control.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 2 (procedural and substantive).
Law ■ Article 13
The Court could not ascertain whether there was a procedure to establish the responsibility of the state and seek compensation for a breach of the rights provided under Article 2 of the Convention in the event that the relevant domestic proceedings have not ended with prosecution and/or a conviction.
Although such a procedure exists, the procedure to obtain compensation is not clear. In a previous judgment, the Court noted that “the domestic courts required that a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage for a violation of a Convention right be based on a decision of the prosecuting authority or on a court ruling obtained in another set of judicial proceedings” (§ 173, see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, § 121, 8 February 2022).
Even if such procedure existed, the Court observed that it had found in a previous case that the low level of compensation was inappropriate to consider the remedy effective, Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 109-11, 5 April 2022).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 13.
Article 41 ■ EUR 50,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage
URAZALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 30580/21 ■ Third Section Committee ■ 16 January 2025
Art 8 ■ Permanent video surveillance ■ Opposite-sex operators ■ Lavatory and shower rooms
Facts ■ The 31 applicants, detained in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities, complained of permanent video surveillance in prison cells including by opposite-sex operators and in lavatory and/or shower rooms.
Law ■ Article 8
The Court recalled its previous case law on similar cases, in which it held that permanent video surveillance of prisoners was to be regarded as a serious interference with their right to respect for privacy, and that the national law cannot be regarded as being sufficiently clear, precise or detailed to have afforded appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the prisoners’ rights (Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019). It saw no reason to depart from this conclusion and found a violation of Article 8 in respect of each applicant (without substantive examination).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Law ■ Other complaints: Article 3, Article 5 § 3, Article 8, Article 13, Article 3 of Protocol No.1
The Court also found violations in respect of some of the applicants under Article 3 (concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings and inadequate conditions of transport), Article 5 § 3 (concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention), Article 8 (restrictions on family visits), Article 13 (lack of effective remedy for complaints concerning conditions of transport, video-surveillance, and restrictions on family visits), Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (inability to vote in parliamentary elections).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3, Article 5 § 3, Article 8, Article 13, Article 3 of Protocol No.1.
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the main complaints and the complaints about the permanent video-surveillance, the lack of effective remedies, and the inability to vote in parliamentary elections. The Court awarded sums varying between EUR 1,000 to 9,750 covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses to five applicants in whose cases it found additional violations of Articles 3, 5 § 3, and 8.
PULYALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 1058/17 and 10 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 16 January 2025
KUCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 3234/17 and 12 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 16 January 2025
DEGTYAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 19573/21 and 10 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 16 January 2025
Art 3 ■ Strict imprisonment regime
Facts ■ The 39 applicants complained under Article 3 of the strict imprisonment regime imposed on them.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled it had found that the strict prison regime (involving segregation, limited outdoor exercise and a lack of purposeful activity) automatically imposed on life prisoners in Russia for the first ten years of their sentence amounts to a violation of Article 3 (N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020).
It saw no reasons to depart from this conclusion and found a violation of Article 3 in respect of each applicant, on account of the cumulative effects of the strict regime restrictions (without substantive analysis).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Article 41 ■ EUR 3,000 to each applicant in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
GÜLMEZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 27499/20 and 6 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 16 January 2025
Art 10 ■ Seizure of manuscripts ■ Interference with right to freedom of expression
Facts ■ The 7 applicants complained under Article 10 of the seizure of manuscripts by the prison administration (works of fiction, including a political story on a fictional coup attempt against a king, personal diary, poetry book, personal notebook written in Kurdish and including the word “Kurdistan” multiple times).
Law ■ Article 10
The Court recalled that it had previously found that there was no legal basis in Turkish domestic law for the seizure of a detainee’s manuscript under any circumstances and that it had already found a violation of Article 10 with respect to complaints similar to those in the present case (Günana and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 70934/10 and 4 others, 20 November 2018, and also Murat Türk v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 20686/19, 5 April 2022).
It saw no reasons to depart from this conclusion and found a violation of Article 10 in respect of each applicant on the grounds that the disputed interference was not “prescribed by law” (without substantive analysis).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 10.
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. The Court awarded EUR 250 to two applicants in respect of cost and expenses.
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. The European Union and the Robert Carr Fund cannot be held responsible for them.
