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 >> October 2024 / NOVember 2024 / December 2024
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OCTOBER 2024 >> READ FULL VERSION
LOMBARDI v. ITALY ■ Application no. 80288/13
Prisoner with orthopaedic and neurological diseases (recurrent spinal disc herniation, spinal arthritis and acute lumbar pain) resulting in impaired mobility, maintained in detention, where he could not receive prescribed physiotherapy: violation of Article 3.
ELDAR HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN ■ Application no. 12058/21
Prisoner with various chronic illnesses (including multiple disc herniations and protrusions, spinal cord compression, osteochondrosis, various cardiac and cardiovascular conditions) maintained in detention; lack of or delay in medical examinations; lack of comprehensive medical examinations in order to engage a comprehensive therapeutic strategy: violation of Article 3.
Government’s lack of compliance or delay in compliance with interim measures ordered by the Court: violation of Article 34.
KESZTHELYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 44977/20 and 2 others
FÖLDES-SZABÓ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 36189/22 and 8 others
Prisoners condemned to life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after having served long periods of time (between 25 years and 11 months and 37 years and 7 months): violation of Article 3.
MEDVID v. UKRAINE ■ Applications no. 7453/23
Clear and realistic prospect of reducibility of life sentences after new release on parole mechanism became fully operational: no violation of Article 3; violation of Article 3 for the twenty-year period prior to the entry into force of the new mechanism.
HAUGEN v. NORWAY ■ Application no. 59476/21
Civil claim for non-pecuniary damage under domestic tort law for human rights violations at the material time not an effective remedy: application admissible.
Failure to safeguard the life of the applicant’s son who suffered from psychiatric disorders and committed suicide in pre-trial detention in an ordinary prison unit: violation of Article 2.
Lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to obtain a determination of the alleged failure to protect his son’s right to life and to obtain satisfaction for the damage suffered: violation of Article 13.
CESARANO v. ITALY ■ Application no. 71250/16
Applicant facing life imprisonment not entitled to a reduced sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment in exchange for accepting to be tried under summary procedure, as this procedure was requested long after the legal framework had been amended in more severe terms: no violation of Article 7, no violation of Article 6 § 1 (partly dissenting opinion of Judge Felici).
S.M. v. ITALY ■ Application no. 16310/20
Prisoner with severe cognitive deficit and multiple diseases (HIV, Kaposi sarcoma, HIV-related encephalopathy and chronic HCV-related hepatopathy, progressive neurological deterioration, impaired mobility), requiring assistance to perform daily tasks maintained in detention, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: no violation of Article 3 (partly dissenting opinion of Judge Jelić and Judge Hüseynov)
KOBALIYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 39446/16 and 106 others
Restrictions on the rights of Russian non‑governmental organisations (NGOs), including NGOs active in the area of prisoners’ rights, media organisations and individuals designated as “foreign agents”: violation of Articles 8, 10, and 11 (concurring opinion of Judge Serghides).
NOVEMBER 2024 >> READ FULL VERSION
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.
DECEMBER 2024 >> READ FULL VERSION
ADAMČO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2) ■ Applications nos. 55792/20 and 2 others
Absence of convincing security needs for systematically subjecting a prisoner to thorough strip searches for an extensive period of time and despite a complex set of other security arrangements: violation of Article 3.
Inspection by prison officers of the applicant’s documents on the occasion of consultations with his lawyers in prison, without reasons suggesting an abuse in the privileged channel of communication with his lawyers: violation of Article 8.
Remaining complaints not examined (partly dissenting opinion of Judge Serghides).
RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA ■ Application no. 56545/21
Failure to exhaust domestic remedies: complaint partly inadmissible.
Prisoner confined in his cell for 23 hours a day and limited out-of-cell activity for more than one year and four months; adequate personal space; cumulative detention conditions not amounting to ill-treatment: no violation of Article 3.
NECDET VURAL v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 35555/19
Prisoner denied authorisation to receive publications in prison, either paid for by himself or sent by his relatives: violation of Article 10.
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.
