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
RIGÓ v. HUNGARY ■ Application no. 54953/21
Refusal of a prisoner’s request for leave from prison to attend the funerals of his close relatives, solely on the basis of the Covid-19 pandemic context, without an individual assessment of the health risk to the applicant or to third parties: violation of Article 8.
KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 82352/17 and 3 others
Prisoners placed in solitary confinement for extended periods; additional restrictions (limited access to outdoor exercise, limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside), poor detention conditions: violation of Article 3.
GÖZÜTOK v. TÜRKIYE (dec.) ■ Application no. 41412/21
Applicant with cardiovascular disease handcuffed during medical examination: complaint under Article 3 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Security measures, including escort and body search, applied in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; detention conditions in quarantine ward; exposure to passive smoking: complaint under Article 3 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
POULOPOULOS v. GREECE ■ Application no. 27936/18
Terminally ill prisoner (hepatic cancer, hepatic cirrhosis) held in poor detention conditions in a prison hospital (overcrowding, poor hygiene, absence of the prescribed special food regime): violation of Article 3.
Absence of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Article 13.
NIORT v. ITALY ■ Application no. 4217/23
Failure of the authorities to adequately assess the compatibility of a prisoner’s state of health (personality disorder, borderline disorder and antisocial disorder) with his continued detention, despite numerous elements raising doubts as to the compatibility in question: violation of Article 3 (procedural).
Failure by the authorities to implement judicial decisions requiring the applicant to be transferred to a prison where he could receive adequate medical care: violation of Article 6§1 (civil).
The applicant’s psychiatric disorders did not prevent him from understanding and benefiting from the aim of social reintegration pursued by the detention: application under Article 5§1 a) inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Failure of the State to fulfil its obligation to provide all the information necessary to establish the facts: violation of Article 38.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; mandatory pardon proceedings taking place only after forty years (Pápics and Others v. Hungary, no. 13727/20 and 15 Others, 4 March 2025): violation of Article 3.
Inadequate conditions of transport of prisoners (Sannikov v. Russia, no. 176/22, 6 March 2025): violation of Article 3.
Lack of or delay in providing adequate medical treatment in detention for prisoners suffering from HIV, tooth loss and dental pain (Gordiyenok and Turpulkhanov v. Russia, nos. 47120/22 and 19373/23, 6 March 2025): violation of Articles 3 and 13.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
RIGÓ v. HUNGARY■ Application no. 54953/21 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 4 March 2025
Art 8 ■ Refusal to grant leave from prison to attend the funerals of close relatives ■ Decision taken solely on the basis of the Covid-19 pandemic context ■ No individual assessment of health risks
Facts ■ The applicant had been serving a prison sentence between July 2017 and July 2021. In 2021, he filed two applications for extraordinary leaves of absence to attend the funeral of his mother (May 2021) and his brother (June 2021). Both decisions were rejected due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.
The applicant complained that the authorities failed to give an adequate decision justifying the refusal of his request for leave to attend the funerals of his close relatives.
Law ■ Article 8
General principles: Császy v. Hungary, no. 14447/11, §§ 15-22, 21 October 2014; Kanalas v. Romania, no. 20323/14, §§ 53-67, 6 December 2016; G.T. v. Greece, no. 37830/16, §§ 68-74, 13 December 2022.
The Court recalled that “the margin of appreciation afforded to the States in the field of healthcare must be a wide one”, including when the circumstances require to “strike a balance between competing private and public interests or Convention rights” (§ 10; see Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 78, 17 October 2024 and Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 274, 8 April 2021).
The Court also noted that the refusal to grant prison leaves was grounded in domestic law and that the measure was meant to serve “the legitimate aim of protection of health” (§ 12).
However, the Court noted that procedural shortcomings prevented the applicants from having his requests examined on the merits in due time: namely, the decisions rejecting the applicant’s requests were only issued after the funerals had taken place; and the applicant had not been informed he could file a permission for exceptional leave to the National Commande (instead of the head of the prison facility in which he was detained).
Furthermore, the Court observed that at the time the applicant filed his requests, “the context and the authorities’ approach to the pandemic appears to have changed, evidenced by a number of restrictive measures concerning contacts and gatherings being lifted” (§ 15). While this changes would have required an individual assessment of the applicant’s situation, the authorities, when rejecting his applications, “invoked the health crisis in a general manner, without any assessment of the particularities of the applicant’s requests and without providing any specific circumstances that would have represented a health risk for the applicant or for third parties” (§ 16).
In view of the above, the Court concluded that the pandemic context had been the “sole factor taken into account by the domestic authorities when restricting the applicant’s right to family life” (§ 17). The restriction was found to be not necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses.
KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 82352/17 and 3 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 6 March 2025
Art 3 ■ Long periods of solitary confinement ■ Additional restrictions ■ Poor detention conditions
Art 13 ■ Lack of effective remedy in this respect not examined
Facts ■ The five applicants complained under Article 3 of inadequate detention conditions, in particular in view of their placement in solitary confinement.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled that long periods of solitary confinement without appropriate stimulation can have damaging effects, and that it had already found a violation of Article 3 in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (Razvyazkin, no. 13579/09, §§ 90-112, 3 July 2012, A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 104 and 108, 14 October 2010; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
In the case at hand, the Court noted that the applicants had been held in uninterrupted solitary confinement for extended periods, from a few days to more than a year.
In addition to social isolation the applicants’ placement in solitary confinement had been associated with a additional restrictions (limited access to outdoor exercise, limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside) and poor detention conditions (inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water).
Having established that there had been a violation of Article 3, the Court considered it had “dealt with the main legal questions raised” by the applicants and considered there was no need to examine their complaint under Article 13 (§ 12).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Article 41 ■ From EUR 2,000 to EUR 5,300 to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
GÖZÜTOK v. TÜRKIYE (dec.) ■ Application no. 41412/21 ■ Second Section ■ 18 March 2025
Art 3 ■ Prisoner with cardiovascular disease handcuffed during medical consultation ■ Flight risk providing adequate justification ■ No elements suggesting vulnerability due to the applicant’s health
Art 3 ■ Application of security measures (body searches, escort) during escort to hospital in the context of COVID-19 pandemic
Art 3 ■ Detention conditions in quarantine ward ■ No indication that the applicant should have been isolated from other prisoners ■ No indication that exposure to passive smoking had an adverse impact on the applicant’s health
Facts ■ The applicant is a prisoner suffering from a cardiovascular disease. While detained in Kocaeli Prison, he was escorted on three occasions to the Kocaeli University Hospital for a medical examination. Each time upon his return, he was placed in the quarantine ward of the prison for a 14-day quarantine. He remained in total 44 days in quarantine.
He complained to the Kocaeli enforcement judge that the conditions of the quarantine ward were putting his health and physical well-being at risk. He alleged that the ward was overcrowded, that he was exposed to passive smoking, and that prisoners were placed in the yard without testing them for COVID-19 or without guards waiting for the results of the test. He also complained about his conditions of transport to and from the hospital (namely that physical and distancing rules were not respected by the gendarmerie officers who escorted him), and that the doctor who examined him failed to request that his handcuffs be removed.
The enforcement judge rejected his complaint. His appeals were rejected by the Kocaeli Assize Court and the Constitutional Court.
Law ■ Article 3 ■ Alleged handcuffing during medical examination
General principles: Shlykov and Others v. Russia, nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, § 72, 19 January 2021; A.J.P. v. France, no. 17020/05, § 95, 29 October 2009, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 156-160, 15 May 2012; Julin v. Estonia, nos. 16563/08 and 3 others, § 130, 29 May 2012; Goriunov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 14466/12, § 33, 29 May 2018; Raninen v. Finland, no. 20972/92, 16 December 1997, §§ 57-58; Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, § 39, 20 January 2011
The Court noted that the applicant had not been handcuffed during a detailed examination but during a “brief consultation, during which the doctor listened to the applicant from the other end of the room and asked him to undergo certain tests and to come back the following month” (§ 34). Furthermore, the Court observed that the facts took place in a civil hospital, which “generated security concerns, in particular in view of the lack of any specific arrangements made with regard to prisoners in the clinic” and in the absence of any additional security measures (eg reinforced escort) during the consultation (§ 35 – the Court based its reasoning on the CPT standards concerning healthcare services in prisons, especially § 36 thereof). The Court also considered that there were no elements suggesting that the applicant was in a particularly vulnerable state due to his health, or that the handcuffing was aimed at humiliating the applicant or had physical or mental effects on him.
Lastly, the Court stressed that the applicant, who had been sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation (designated by the Turkish authorities as “the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”), was classified as a prisoner deemed a flight risk. The Court considered that “while not elaborately detailed, this assessment provided adequate justification for the security measure in question” (§ 37).
Conclusion ■ Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Law ■ Article 3 ■ Conditions of detention in the context of COVID-19
General principles: Fenech v. Malta, no. 19090/20, §§ 19-24, 1 March 2022; Dobri v. Romania, no. 25153/04, § 51, 14 December 2010; Fűlöp v. Romania, no. 18999/04, § 38, 24 July 2012
The Court noted that it was not disputed that prison staff “were required to wear masks and gloves when in contact with the prisoners, that all common areas were cleaned with detergent, that prisoners were provided with sanitary supplies, and that quarantine wards were regularly disinfected” (§ 46). The Court further noted that the report drawn up on the applicant’s escort to the hospital indicates that body searches were carried out by using masks, gloves and disinfectant.
The Court also reiterated that preventive measures “should not put an excessive burden on the authorities in view of the practical demands of imprisonment, especially in the context of a global pandemic of a novel disease” (§ 47). In particular, it argued that the authorities could not be “criticised for the conditions of [the applicant’s] transfer to the hospital, which required the gendarmerie officers to carry out certain security measures, including a body search, and to stay close to him at all times” (idem).
In view of the measures implemented by the authorities and “in the absence of detailed submissions from the applicant regarding the extent of the authorities’ alleged failure to test new inmates or whether the manual body search was conducted with or without gloves”, the Court found that the applicant’s claims were “insufficiently substantiated” (idem).
The Court further noted that while the applicant had a heart condition, “in the absence of any medical reports on whether his detention together with other prisoners exacerbated the risks to his health from his condition or any submissions by the applicant regarding the specific nature of his condition” (§ 49), it could not conclude that his condition required the authorities to separate him from other prisoners. In any event, the Court considered that in view of the novelty of the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, “it may not have been possible to make arrangements for each vulnerable individual to be moved to safer quarters before any contamination occurred in the prison” (idem). Lastly, the Court noted that the applicant did not contract COVID-19 during his detention (and recalled that violations of Article Article 3 due to inadequate preventive measures in prison were found in cases where detainees actually contracted the disease, see § 48 referring to S.M. v. Italy, no. 16310/20, 10 October 2024).
As regards the applicant’s allegation that he had been exposed to passive smoking, the Court noted first that this part of the complaint did not concern the full 44-day detention period in the quarantine yard, but only the first period of 27 days. The Court also observed that the applicant did not ask to be placed in a non-smoking cell at any point during his detention. Consequently, given “the brevity of the period concerned and the absence of any medical reports regarding his health condition, the Court finds that the applicant’s alleged exposure to cigarette smoke cannot, in itself, have had an adverse effect on his health or aggravated the conditions of his detention in the quarantine ward” (§ 50).
Conclusion ■ Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
POULOPOULOS v. GREECE ■ Application no. 27936/18 ■ Third Section Committee ■ 20 March 2025
Art 3 ■ Inadequate conditions of detention of a terminally ill prisoner (hepatic cancer, hepatic cirrhosis) in a prison hospital ■ Adequacy of medical treatment not examined
Art 13 ■ Lack of effective domestic remedy in this respect
Facts ■ The applicant was a terminally ill patient suffering from hepatic cancer and hepatic cirrhosis due to an HCV infection. In January 2017 he started serving a prison sentence. On his request, he was transferred on 1 March 2018 to the Korydallos Prison Hospital.
On 19 March 2018 he lodged a request for release on medical grounds. On 20 June 2018 the prosecutor supported the request on the grounds that the applicant could not have received long term hospitalisation at the Prison Hospital, required by his medical condition. The medical expert appointed by the court confirmed the applicant’s non-treatable condition. On 17 August 2018 the court ordered the applicant’s release. The applicant was released on the same day. He died on 12 September 2019.
The applicant complained about poor conditions of detention at the Prison Hospital between March and August 2018, in particular, about overcrowding, poor hygiene and absence of the prescribed special food regime, and of the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. He alleged that those conditions were incompatible with his medical condition.
The Court found that the applicant’s heirs had standing to continue the proceedings on his behalf.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled that it had already found a violation of Article 3 in respect of conditions of detention in Korydallos Prison Hospital on account of the same defects complained of by the applicant. in previous cases (see Zabelos and Others v. Greece, no. 1167/15, §§ 81-86, 17 May 2018, and Martzaklis and Others v. Greece, no. 20378/13, §§ 67-69 and 75, 9 July 2015).
The Court noted that the Government had not provided any primary evidence regarding the applicant’s conditions of detention for the period complained of. It stressed that “certificates established by the impugned detention facility are of little evidentiary value when they do not contain references to the original prison documentation and are apparently based on personal recollections rather than on any objective data” (§ 21).
It further noted that the applicant’s complaints, in particular as regards overcrowding and lack of hygiene in the sanitation facilities, are corroborated by the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture drawn up following its visit of the Prison Hospital in March and April 2019 ((CPT/Inf(2020)15). In these circumstances, the Court found the inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention established, notably as regards the overcrowding, poor hygiene and absence of the appropriate food regime. The Court further gave particular weight to the applicant’s state of serious vulnerability as a terminally ill prisoner, having noted that the domestic court had ordered his release on account of his state of health.
Having established that a there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s detention conditions, the Court considered it had “dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case” and considered there was no need to assess the adequacy of the medical treatment received by the applicant (§ 30).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Law ■ Article 13
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant could have used the remedies foreseen in Article 6 of the Penitentiary Code and Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those remedies were considered ineffective “in connection to the applicant’s allegation that he was individually affected by the general conditions of detention at the Prison Hospital, such as overcrowding, insufficient nutrition and lack of hygiene” (§ 27, mentioning Tsokas and Others v. Greece, no. 41513/12, § 80, 28 May 2014).
Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant’s requests for transfer to the Prison Hospital and for release on medical grounds had been both granted, and recalled that “an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful” (idem, mentioning Alković v. Montenegro, no. 66895/10, § 51, 5 December 2017).
Turning to the details of the applicant’s request for release (under Article 110A of the Criminal Code), the Court considered that the length of the relevant proceedings had been excessively long. The proceedings lasted five months, and more than four months elapsed between the submission of the request for release and the appointment of an expert hepatologist.
The Court recalled that it had found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 in a similar case where such proceedings lasted approximately 10 months (Kalandia v. Greece, no. 48684/15, §§ 95-97, 6 October 2015), and a violation of Article 5 § 4 where they lasted 47 days (Christodoulou and Others v. Greece, no. 80452/12, § 70, 5 June 2014).
Considering the above, it found that the remedy’s effectiveness was compromised due to the excessive length of the relevant proceedings.
Article 41 ■ EUR 8,000 jointly to the applicant’s heirs in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
NIORT v. ITALY ■ Application no. 4217/23 ■ First Section ■ 27 March 2025
Art 3 (procedural) ■ Ineffective investigation ■ Internal authorities did not adequately examine the compatibility of the applicant’s state of health (psychiatric disorders) with detention in prison ■ Numerous elements raising doubts as to the compatibility in question ■ Vulnerability of the applicant
Art 6§1 (civil) ■ Internal decisions concerning access to medical care not implemented or, at the very least, not within a reasonable period of time
Art 5§1 a) ■ The applicant’s psychiatric disorders did not prevent him from understanding the objective of social reintegration pursued by the detention and benefiting from it
Art 38 ■ Failure of the State to fulfil its obligation to provide all necessary information to enable the facts to be established
Facts ■ The applicant suffers from psychiatric disorders (personality disorder, borderline disorder and antisocial disorder) for which he has been treated since childhood and has a disability rate of 100%. He was sentenced in 2016 to 10 years’ imprisonment. He was detained in several prisons in Sardinia.
While in prison, the applicant suffered several crises, self-harmed on numerous occasions and attempted suicide several times (twice in 2016, four times between 2017 and 2020, twelve times in 2022, two times in 2023).
The applicant has argued before domestic courts that his state of health is incompatible with detention. He first requested in 2020 to have his prison sentence commuted to home detention. The Sentence Adjustment judge rejected his application but invited the authorities to assess through psychiatric expertise the compatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his continued detention. The 2021 report resulting from this assessment was not communicated to the Court. The applicant remained in prison.
The applicant then requested in 2022 to have his prison sentence commuted with the measure of supervision by social services. His application was rejected by the Sentence Adjustment judge, who considered that this measure was not appropriate considering his violent behaviour. However, the judge, noting that the incidents of self-harm had become more frequent, also argued that the applicant’s current conditions of detention were incompatible with his state of health and recommended that he be transferred to another prison where he could receive appropriate treatment.
In 2023, the Sentence Adjustment Judge also rejected the applicant’s complaint about the inadequacy of his treatment in detention. The judge argued that the applicant’s disorders could be treated in prison and that his behaviour could be linked to his refusal to comply with the prescribed therapy. The judge also reiterated that the prison administration should act to transfer the applicant to another facility where he could receive adequate care.
In the same year, the judge also rejected the applicant’s request to be granted leave from prison to assess the possibility of being transferred to a specific facility (contacted by his lawyer) on the grounds of inappropriate behaviour in detention.
In January 2023, the applicant filed a request for interim measure before the Court. He asked the Court to invite the Government to transfer him to a facility where he could receive appropriate treatment for his psychiatric disorders. The Court rejected his request in March 2023, on the basis of reports submitted by the Government on healthcare services available in the prison in which the applicant was detained and on reports prepared by health professionals working in the prison, which indicated that the applicant’s state of health was stable.
In June 2023, following incidents of self-harm (he set himself on fire), the applicant was transferred to Turin prison for security reasons. As a result of further episodes of self-harm and suicide attempts, he was placed under increased supervision and followed by a multidisciplinary team. The applicant himself explained that his behaviour was a way of protesting against his transfer to Turin and asked to be transferred back to Sardinia. He was transferred back to Cagliari prison in January 2024.
Law ■ Article 3
General principles: Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-148, 31 January 2019 and W.D. v. Belgium, no. 73548/13, §§ 114-115, 6 September 2016; on the adequacy of medical treatment in detention: Wenner v. Germany, no. 62303/13, § 56-58, 1 September 2016 and Keenan v. United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 115, 3 April 2001; on the continued detention of ill prisoners: Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no. 47687/13, § 123, 17 November 2015 and Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, § 102, 5 March 2013 and Raffray Taddei v. France, no 36435/07, § 60, 21 December 2010.
With regard to the applicant’s state of health, the Court noted that the fact that the applicant suffered from psychiatric disorder was not disputed. It also noted that a 2019 psychiatric expert report noted that detention could aggravate existing disorders, and that self-harm acts and suicide attempts became more frequent several years after his admission to prison.
With regards to the adequacy of the medical treatment received in prison, the Court concluded from the documentation sent by the Government that the applicant received multidisciplinary and regular follow-ups by psychiatrists, psychologists and educators and that he was prescribed medication. However, the Court noted with concern that no information on the treatment received since August 2023 was communicated by the Government.
With regard to the applicant’s continued detention, the Court noted, first, that a 2019 medical report indicated that the applicant’s disorders were “reactive to detention” (§ 97) and could therefore be aggravated by detention. Second, a 2020 report mentioned that the applicant’s medical condition was incompatible with detention, as his disorders were difficult to manage in prison. Thirdly, domestic courts have also expressed doubts as to the appropriateness of the applicant’s continued detention (in particular a 2022 decision of the Sentence Adjustment Tribunal of Cagliari – see § 22 cited in § 97). Fourthly, the doubts expressed by the domestic courts were corroborated by numerous acts of self-harm and suicide attempts by the applicant, whose state of health appeared to have deteriorated over time.
In view of the applicant’s particular vulnerability (as a result of his psychiatric disorders), the authorities should have thoroughly examined whether the applicant should have been kept in prison. However, the domestic courts have relied on reports submitted by the prison authorities “without examining in depth and more generally the subsequent factors which might call into question the compatibility of the applicant’s psychiatric disorders with his detention” (§101).
The Court also noted that the authorities had not responded adequately to the opinion of a domestic court which had recognised the incompatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his continued detention (while at the same time recommending, in a contradictory manner, that he be transferred to another facility).
Finally, the Court noted that, although it had requested the Government to submit an independent expert opinion on the adequacy of the applicant’s treatment in detention and the compatibility of his continued detention with his state of health, such an expert opinion had never been submitted and the Government had not provided any explanation.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Court’s position on the allocation of the burden of proof, it considered that the authorities had not shown that the compatibility of the applicant’s continued detention with his state of health had been adequately examined.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Law ■ Article 5 § 1 a)
The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that his detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1 a) since psychiatric disorders, combined with the absence of adequate care, prevented him from “understanding the objective of social reintegration pursued by the detention and benefiting from it” (§ 114, see Sy v. Italy, no. 11791/20, § 122, 24 January 2022 for a discussion on the application of Article 5 § 1 a) to the case of prisoners with psychiatric disorders).
The Court argued in particular that an expert report drawn up in the context of a criminal trial for acts committed in prison concludes that the person had only a partial incapacity of discernment at the time the report was drawn up and had the capacity to participate in the trial. Similarly, the Court noted that other reports indicate a lack of impulse control on the part of the applicant rather than a total incapacity of discernment on his part.
Conclusion ■ Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Law ■ Article 6 § 1
The applicant complained that domestic court decisions ordering his transfer to other prisons better equipped to treat his mental disorders had not been implemented.
The Court held that “non-execution of decisions concerning access to medical care falls within the civil limb of Article 6 § 1” (§ 123) and more broadly that “the execution of a judgement or decision, from whatever jurisdiction, must be considered as forming an integral part of the trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that the non-execution of a final and enforceable court decision would deprive the guarantees enshrined in that article of any useful effect” (§ 125).
The Court noted that a Sentence Adjustment Tribunal had requested the applicant’s transfer to another prison in November 2022 and January 2023. The applicant was finally transferred in June 2023 (with a six-month delay). The Court analysed that this transfer did not take place in order to implement this order, but in response to an incident of self-harm.
The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to implement judicial decisions concerning access to medical care.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 6 § 1.
Law ■ Article 38
The Court recalled that it had requested the Government to provide specific information on the case (medical reports, including on the compatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his continued detention, and information on the measures taken to implement the above-mentioned judicial orders – see section on Article 6 § 1). The Government did not comply with this request, which impaired the establishment of the facts.
The Court stated that this failure had been taken into account in its reasoning on the burden of proof (see section on Article 3 above) and concluded that the Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 38.
Law ■ Article 46
The Court rejected the applicant’s request that it formulate general measures to resolve what it considered to be structural problems, such as the lack of places in therapeutic facilities, the lack of psychiatric services in prisons and the lack of a regulatory framework for the treatment of prisoners with psychiatric disorders in prisons.
The Court did not see any link between the violation of Articles 3 and 6 § 1 on the one hand and the alleged lack of places in therapeutic facilities on the other. The Court also considered that the existence of a structural problem of a lack of psychiatric services in prison and a lack of a regulatory framework for the treatment of prisoners with psychiatric disorders in prison had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Article 41 ■ EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,800 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.
