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
VAKULENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 38875/20 and 45 others
Inadequate conditions of transport: violation of Article 3.
MARO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 31274/19 and 34 others
V.P. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 33140/15 and 38 others
Prisoners holding an inferior position within an informal prisoner hierarchy exposed to segregation, humiliating practices and abuses and facing heightened risks of inter-prisoner violence; failure of the authorities to properly address these risks and to provide the applicants with effective domestic remedies: violation of Articles 3 and 13.
KARAVAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 26888/21 and 34 others
Permanent video surveillance, including by opposite-sex operators, in prison cells and lavatory and/or shower rooms: violation of Article 8.
ZAKRZEWSKI v. POLAND ■ Application no. 63277/19
Applicant having served more than half of his sentence and released on parole recalled to prison after his sentence had been increased following a cassation appeal by the Prosecutor General: violation of Article 6 § 1.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
VAKULENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 38875/20 and 45 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 7 November 2024
Art 3 ■ Inadequate conditions of transport
Facts ■ The 46 applicants complained under Article 3 of the inadequate conditions of detention during transport (by train, van, as well as conditions in transit cells), due to: overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, insufficient sleeping places, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to toilet and to potable water, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, passive smoking, lack of seat belt, etc.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled it had found violations of Article 3 in respect of inadequate detention conditions during prisoners’ transfer in Russia (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 2012; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §182, 2019), and saw no reason to depart from its well-established case law. It found a violation of Article 3 in respect of each applicant (without substantive analysis).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Law ■ Other complaints: Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, Article 13
The Court also found violations in respect of some of the applicants under Article 3 (inadequate medical treatment, use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms), Article 5 (excessive length of pre-trial detention, excessive length of judicial review of detention), Article 8 ( permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities, lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits), Article 13 (lack of effective remedy in respect of complaints under Articles 3 and 8).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3, Article 5, Article 8, Article 13.
Article 41 ■ Between EUR 9,750 and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses for each applicant.
MARO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 31274/19 and 34 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 7 November 2024
V.P. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 33140/15 and 38 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 7 November 2024
Art 3 ■ Informal prison hierarchy ■ Inhuman and degrading treatment ■ Inter-prisoner violence ■ Segregation and humiliating practices
Art 13 ■ Lack of effective domestic remedy
Facts ■ The 74 applicants complained of inhuman and degrading treatment in Russian penal facilities due to their inferior position within an informal prisoner hierarchy (segregation, humiliating practices, abuse and heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence) and the lack of effective domestic remedies for their complaints in that regard.
Law ■ Article 3 and Article 13
General principles: S.P. and Others v. Russia, no. 36463/11, 2023 and D v. Latvia, no. 76680/17, 2024
The Court recalled in particular that it had already found that “the physical and symbolic separation of “outcast” prisoners, coupled with restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact, caused mental anxiety exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even when they were not subjected to physical violence or threats of violence” (§ 8, referring to S.P. and Others, § 96, and D v. Latvia, § 51).
The Court, without examining in detail the cases on the merits, found that the applicants “belonged to the stigmatised group of prisoners and endured degrading treatment on that account” (§ 9 in both judgments) and lacked an effective remedy in this respect.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Articles 3 and 13.
Law ■ Other complaints: Article 8 and Article 13
In light of its well-established case-law the Court found, in respect of some of the applicants, violations of Articles 8 and 13 on account of permanent video surveillance in prison cells or dormitories, by opposite-sex operators and due to the lack of effective domestic remedies in this regard (Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2019).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8 and Article 13.
Article 41 ■ Between EUR 20,000 and 26,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to each applicant.
KARAVAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 26888/21 and 34 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 7 November 2024
Art 3 ■ Permanent video surveillance ■ Opposite-sex operators ■ Lavatory and shower room
Facts ■ The 35 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, 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 13, Article 3 of Protocol No.1
The Court also found violations in respect of some of the applicants under Article 3 (inadequate conditions of detention after conviction, inadequate conditions of detention during transport), Article 13 (lack of effective remedy in respect of complaints under Articles 3 and 8), Article 3 of Protocol No.1 (inability to vote in parliamentary elections).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3, Article 13, Article 3 of Protocol No.1.
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient satisfaction for violations of Article 8. The Court awarded 2 applicants EUR 11,250 and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses in cases where additional violations of Article 3 were found.
ZAKRZEWSKI v. POLAND ■ Application no. 63277/19 ■ First Section ■ 14 November 2024
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) ■ Fair hearing ■ Increase of applicant’s prison sentence following cassation appeal by Prosecutor General and re-examination of the case after he served more than half of the sentence and was released on parole ■ Domestic courts’ failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s interest and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the justice system ■ Lack of assessment of any fundamental defects of the criminal proceedings and of any consideration of the applicant’s situation did not meet the Court’s case-law standards
Facts ■ The applicant was sentenced in 2017 to two years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of drugs. The Court applied extraordinary mitigation and argued that it would be “flagrantly disproportionate” to impose the statutory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment, given that there was no evidence that he had attempted to distribute the drugs and that he had no previous criminal record, had a “socially acceptable lifestyle” and provided assistance to his family. The appellate court confirmed this reasoning but added punitive damages (PLN 1,000, approximately EUR 250). The applicant started serving his prison sentence on February 2018.
In March 2018, the Minister of Justice/Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the penalty imposed had been flagrantly too lenient.
In February 2019, the applicant was released on parole, with a two-year probation period. The parole request had been made by the prison governor (owing to the applicant’s behaviour and social rehabilitation efforts) and had not been objected to by the prosecutor.
In March 2019, the Supreme Court found that the application of extraordinary mitigation was not justified under the law and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court did not take note of the applicant’s release on parole, despite being informed of it by the applicant’s lawyer.
In May 2019, the appellate court amended its 2017 judgment and sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of PLN 500 (EUR 125). Subsequently, in October 2019, the applicant was sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Law ■ Article 6 § 1
The Court noted at the outset that the cassation appeal that was lodged by the Minister of Justice/Prosecutor General was filed more than five months after the applicant’s final conviction. Although this is within the statutory time-limit (less than one year after the applicant’s final conviction), it must be distinguished from the cassation appeal which could have been lodged by the parties to the proceedings within the time‑limit of thirty days after the final conviction, “which would have amounted to a continuation of the criminal proceedings” (§ 43).
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court, who overturned the 2017 appelate court judgment, “failed to explain in its judgment what had been the fundamental defects of the criminal proceedings that needed correction” (§ 44).
It also found that in their judgments, that neither the Supreme Court nor the appleate court that reversed the judgment took into account in their judgments the impact of the subsequent proceedings on the individual situation of the applicant, who “had already served more than half of his sentence and had been released from prison on parole following proceedings initiated by the prison governor” (§ 45). The Court therefore found that these courts have failed to strike “a fair balance between the interest of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the justice system” (idem).
In conclusion, the Court argued that “the lack of assessment of any fundamental defects of the criminal proceedings as well as the lack of any consideration of the applicant’s situation did not meet the Court’s case-law standards as regards the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention” (§ 46).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 6 § 1
Article 41 ■ EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,650 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.
