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 >> JULY-August / September
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
JULY-AUGUST 2024 >> READ FULL VERSION
AKTAŞ v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 64870/19
Prison administration’s refusal to hand over to a prisoner copies of a five-volume book series which had been sent to him by post: violation of Article 10.
MATYUSHONOK v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 34590/06
Numerous cases of ill‑treatment and torture in detention and lack of effective investigation in that respect: violation of Article 3 (substantive and procedural limbs).
W.W. v. POLAND ■ Application no. 31842/20
Prison administration’s refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation of Article 8.
SAHRAOUI AND OTHERS v. FRANCE ■ Application no. 35402/20
Death of prisoner suffering from drug addiction from overdose of various medications, some of which had not been prescribed by medical authorities: no violation of Article 2.
NURLYGAYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 3215/20 and 6 others
Permanent video surveillance, including by opposite-sex operators, prison in cells and in lavatory and shower rooms: violation of Article 8.
SHUSHKIN and LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 20693/19 and 39300/19
Inadequate conditions of transport: violation of Article 3.
B.D. v. BELGIUM ■ Application no. 50058/12
Prisoner suffering from mental disorders repeatedly denied the opportunity to have the lawfulness of the extension of his detention in the psychiatric wing of an ordinary prison reviewed and to have it terminated: violation of Article 5 § 4.
Prisoner suffering from mental disorders detained in the psychiatric wing of ordinary prisons without care and treatment appropriate to his state of mental health: violation of Article 5 § 1.
YASAK v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 17389/20
Prisoner held in an overcrowded cell where he had to sleep for long periods on a mattress on the floor; personal space between 3 and 4 sq. m.: no violation of Article 3 (concurring opinion of Judge Krenc).
NAMIK YÜKSEL v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 28791/10
Restrictions imposed on prisoner’s contact with his four-year-old son staying with his wife in the same prison (one hour weekly non-contact visits with his son and one hour monthly contact visits with his wife and son): no violation of Article 8.
SEPTEMBER 2024 >> READ FULL VERSION
HALLAÇOĞLU v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 24514/19
Monitoring by prison authorities of the documents exchanged between a prisoner and his lawyer during their meetings in prison: violation of Article 8.
ULEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 40663/18 and 3 others
Inadequate conditions of detention for prisoners with disabilities (ex. amputated leg, hemiplegia, syringomyelia, myelopathy): violation of Article 3.
Lack of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Article 13.
HAJZER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Application nos. 45016/20 and 9 others
GEISZKOPF AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Application nos. 10673/21 and 14 others
Prisoners condemned to life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after having served long periods of time (between 26 years and five months and 33 years and 10 months): violation of Article 3.
CHAPODZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 50599/16 and 10 others
Restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities (refusals or limitation on the frequency of family visits, physical separation and supervision during family visits, refusal of phone calls to family): violation of Article 8.
KROTOV v. UKRAINE (dec.) ■ Application no. 30289/17
Lack of access to appropriate care and medical treatment for a prisoner with disability (amputated arms and legs): struck out (applicant died during examination of the case, NGO found to lack locus standi).
DIANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 21286/15 and 4 others
Termination by police officers of a hunger strike in a public space in protest at the use of torture in Russian prisons and subsequent administrative conviction: violation of Article 11.
TUGANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 14539/20 and 49 others
SAUTIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 8936/20 and 50 others
PANICHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 6534/20 and 49 others
Inadequate conditions of transport: violation of Article 3.
KURT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application nos. 29715/19 and 9 others
Electronic recording and storage of prisoners’ correspondence on a national judicial computer system; measures regulated by unpublished regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
ÇİFTÇİ v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 27553/19
Monitoring by prison authorities of the applicant’s meetings with his lawyer in prison: 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.
