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
MELNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Application no. 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 ■ Application no. 64140/19 and 6 others
GENÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Application no. 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Uploading of prisoners’ correspondence onto a national server regulated by unpublished internal regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
MELNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Application no. 38217/19 and 9 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 14 March 2024
Art 8 ■ Permanent video surveillance ■ Opposite-sex operators ■ Lavatory and shower rooms
Facts ■ The 10 applicants, detained in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities, complained under Article 8 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 it had found a violation of Article 8 in similar cases (Gorlov and Others v. Russia,nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2019), in which it found that prisoners’ permanent video surveillance was to be regarded as a serious interference with their right to respect for his or her 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. 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 13, Article 3, Article 3 of Protocol no. 1
The Court also found violations in respect of some of the applicants under Article 13 (lack of effective remedy for the complaints regarding video-surveillance), Articles 3 and 13 (inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the lack of the effective domestic remedies for those complaints), Article 3 (strict imprisonment regime for a life sentence prisoner), Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 (ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections).
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Two applicants were awarded just satisfaction of 1,000 and 3,000 in view of the additional violations found (respectively concerning conditions of transport and the strict imprisonment regime for a life sentence prisoner).
TOPLA AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Application no. 64140/19 and 6 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 12 March 2024
GENÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE ■ Application no. 41210/19 and 5 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 19 March 2024
SUBAŞI AND KARACA v. TÜRKIYE ■ Applications nos. 37629/21 and 53407/21 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 19 March 2024
Art 8 ■ Uploading of prisoners’ correspondence to a judicial IT server not provided for by law ■ Unpublished internal documents
Facts ■ In these three cases, the applicants complained under Article 8 about the uploading of their incoming and outgoing correspondence to the judicial IT server UYAP (Ulusal Yargı Ağı Bilişim Sistemi) during their detention in various prisons in Türkiye. The domestic courts rejected the applicants’ attempts to challenge this practice. The applicants also filed individual complaints before the Constitutional Court.
In the first two cases (Topla and Others and Genç and Others), the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ attempts to challenge this practice, finding the complaints manifestly ill-founded. In the third case (Subaşi and Karaca), the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint brought by one of the applicants as manifestly ill-founded for a failure to comply with the obligation to submit evidence and explanations in support of their claims.
Law ■ Article 8
As regards the Government’s preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the complaints, the Court saw no reason to depart from the conclusion reached in its leading cases on this matter (Nuh Uzun and Others v. Türkiye, no. 49341/18 and 13 others, 2022). In addition, the Court rejected the Government’s argument raised in the third case (Subaşi and Karaca v. Türkiye) that one of the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies on account of the decision of the Constitutional Court to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. The Court held that in the present case, the applicant gave the Constitutional Court the opportunity to find and redress the alleged violation, and thus he cannot be criticized for not having duly exhausted that remedy.
As regards the merits of the complaint under Article 8, the Court referring to its previous case-law on the matter (Nuh Uzun and Others v. Türkiye, cited above), reiterated that the uploading of the applicants’ correspondence in the IT judicial system could not be regarded as having been “in accordance with the law” with the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court also awarded different sums in respect of costs 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
