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
January 2024
MIRANDA MAGRO v. PORTUGAL ■ Application no. 30138/21
Preventive detention of a mentally ill person, exempted from criminal responsibility, at a prison hospital’s psychiatric unit, in inadequate conditions and without appropriate assistance and care: violation of Article 3.
Preventive detention of a mentally ill person, exempted from criminal responsibility, at a prison hospital’s psychiatric unit, in inadequate conditions and without appropriate assistance and care: violation of Article 5 § 1 (e).
Article 46: Respondent State to take general measures to address structural problems in the context of enforcing preventive detention measures in prison facilities.
D v. LATVIA ■ Application no. 76680/17
Segregation, restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact of a prisoner by fellow inmates due to subordinate position in informal prisoner hierarchy; lack of comprehensive State action: violation of Article 3.
Article 46: Respondent State required to take general measures addressing the systemic issue of informal prison hierarchies.
KAYUMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 56727/18 and 8 others
Restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities: violation of Article 8.
LIBRI v. ITALY ■ Application no. 45097/20
Prisoner’s continued detention in spite of several serious health problems (osteoporosis with multiple vertebral collapses and fibromyalgia resulting in limited mobility in the lower limbs): no violation of Article 3.
Inadequate medical treatment: violation of Article 3.
AL-HAWSAWI v. LITHUANIA ■ Application no. 6383/17
Inhuman treatment during the applicant’s extraordinary rendition to CIA: violation of Article 3.
Detention during an operation involving extraordinary rendition to CIA: violation of Article 5 § 1.
Extraordinary rendition to CIA despite real and foreseeable risk of flagrantly unfair trial before the US military commission: violation of Article 6 § 1.
Extraordinary rendition to CIA of suspected terrorist facing capital charges: violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 6.
MILJAK v. CROATIA ■ Application no. 15681/18
Ill-treatment of a prisoner by prison officers and lack of an effective investigation into the incident: violation of Article 3 (procedural and substantive limbs).
FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL ■ Applications nos. 33023/17 and 56476/17
Unjustified continuous detention in high-security regime; detrimental effect of the associated restrictions on the applicant’s resocialisation; restricted contacts with the outside world and prolonged isolation; humiliating intrusive strip-search practices: violation of Article 3.
URSEI v. ROMANIA ■ Application no. 9233/21
Prisoner unable to vote in the legislative elections because he was serving a sentence in a prison situated outside the electoral constituency of his place of residence: violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE ■ Applications nos. 5312/20 and 22627/20
Inadequate medical treatment provided to applicants with serious medical conditions (among others: cardiomyopathy, chronic hepatitis, chronic pancreatitis, hypertensive crisis, diabetes): violation of Article 3.
Lack of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Article 13.
February 2024
PINTUS v. ITALY ■ Application no. 35943/18
Detention of a prisoner suffering from mental disorders for approximately eight months under the ordinary detention regime, despite the incompatibility of his state of mental health with this regime, due to the lack of space in a specialised facility: no violation of Article 2, no violation of Article 3.
SİL AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Applications nos. 8130/19 and 2 others
Uploading of correspondence of prisoners onto a national server regulated by unpublished internal regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
GHIBAN v. ROMANIA ■ Application no. 10862/19
Refusal of leave to a prisoner to attend the funeral of close relatives: violation of Article 8.
Inadequate conditions of detention: inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies).
ASADULLAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 1510/21 and 49 others
SLIVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 28279/21 and 49 others
MOROZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 37564/19 and 47 others
Inadequate conditions of transport: violation of Article 3.
BURTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 45302/19 and 34 others
Permanent video surveillance in prison cells, including by opposite-sex operators, in lavatory and shower rooms and in solitary confinement cells: violation of Article 8.
RUDIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 13050/17 and 10 others
ZAVGORODNIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 28355/18 and 22 others
YEMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 42771/19 and 22 others
Inadequate conditions of detention of life prisoners under strict imprisonment regime: violation of Article 3.
I.L. v. SWITZERLAND (No. 2) ■ Applications nos. 36609/16
Lengthy solitary confinement of the applicant with mental disorders in the absence of adequate therapeutic care: violation of Article 3.
Inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the forced medication and lack of effective remedies in this respect: inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies).
Unlawful detention on account of holding a mentally ill person in an inappropriate facility: violation of Article 5 § 1.
Lack of promptness in consideration of the applicant’s application for release: violation of Article 5 § 4.
LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17
Detention in the secessionist “Moldavian Republic of Transnistria”: jurisdiction of Russia and Moldova.
Inadequate detention conditions, inadequate medical treatment, forced psychiatric treatment: violation of Article 3 by Russia, no violation of Article 3 by Moldova.
Conviction and detention ordered by “MRT” courts: violation of Articles 5 § 1 and 6 by Russia, no violation of Articles 5 § 1 and 6 by Moldova.
SIMON v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 41877/21
Inadequacy of medical care in detention and lack of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Articles 3 and 13.
PĂILĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA ■ Applications nos. 26096/16 and 9 others
Applicant deceased before the Court’s judgment was handed down: judgment revised, application struck out.
March 2024
MELNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 38217/19 and 9 others
Permanent video surveillance in prison cells, including by opposite-sex operators and in lavatory and shower rooms: violation of Article 8.
TOPLA AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Applications nos. 64140/19 and 6 others
GENÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Applications nos. 41210/19 and 5 others
SUBAŞI AND KARACA v. TÜRKIYE ■ Applications nos. 37629/21 and 53407/21
Uploading of prisoners’ correspondence onto a national server regulated by unpublished internal regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
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.
