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
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 ten 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 four 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.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
HALLAÇOĞLU v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 24514/19 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 3 September 2024
Art 8 ■ Monitoring of documents exchanged between a prisoner and his lawyer during their meetings in prison ■ Lack of foreseeability of legal basis
Facts ■ The applicant had been detained on charges of membership of the organisation named by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) and placed in pre-trial detention in a closed type prison.
A domestic court ordered the monitoring of documents exchanged between prisoners and their lawyers in this prison, based on a law amended by a decree adopted in the framework of the state of emergency declared following the attempted coup d’état on 15 July 2016.
The applicants attempted to challenge this decision before domestic courts, which considered it had been in accordance with the applicable law and procedure. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s application as ill-founded on the grounds that there had been no interference with or violation of his rights.
The applicant complained that the monitoring of documents exchanged between him and his lawyer breached his right to communicate privately with his lawyer.
Law ■ Article 8
General principles: Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, §§ 49-52, 2019 (right to confidential communication with a lawyer); Eylem Kaya v. Turkey (no. 26623/07, §§ 41-48, 2016 (monitoring of correspondence between prisoners and their lawyers).
The Court recalled that it had already found that the legal basis invoked (section 59 (5) of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures) was subject to “wide and vague” interpretation by the domestic courts and therefore “did not comply with the Convention requirements of foreseeability and thus lawfulness” (§ 25, see Mehmet Demir v. Türkiye, no. 55569/19, §§ 22-25, 2023).
It found no reason to depart from this conclusion, and further considered that the measure “cannot be regarded as having been strictly required by the particular circumstances of the state of emergency” (§ 26).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ULEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 40663/18 ■ Fourth Section Committee ■ 5 September 2024
Art 3 ■ Conditions of detention of disabled persons
Art 13 ■ Lack of effective domestic remedy
Facts ■ The four applicants, suffering from various disabilities (ex. amputated leg, hemiplegia, syringomyelia, myelopathy), complained that they were held in poor conditions which did not satisfy their special needs and they had no effective remedy in this connection.
Law ■ Articles 3 and 13
General principles: Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78‑81, 2016; Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 46‑51, 2016.
The Court recalled it had found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 in issues similar to those in the present case (see Topekhin, Butrin, Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, 2014) and saw no reason to depart from its findings.
It considered that the applicants’ detention conditions, “exacerbated by their physical impairments, amounted to ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’” (§ 10) and that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in this respect.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Articles 3 and 13.
Article 41 ■ EUR 15,000 to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
HAJZER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 45016/20 and 9 others ■ First Section Committee ■ 5 September 2024
GEISZKOPF AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ■ Applications nos. 10673/21 and 14 others ■ First Section Committee ■ 5 September 2024
Art 3 ■ Life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after having served a lengthy period of time.
Facts ■ The 25 applicants complained of their life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after release on parole only after having served a very long time (between 26 years and five months and 33 years and ten months).
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled it had already found a violation of Article 3 in its leading case regarding life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after very long periods of time (see Bancsók and László Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2), nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15, 2021).
It saw no reason to depart from this conclusion and insisted that the waiting period unduly delays the domestic authorities’ review of “whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds” (§ 10 in both cases, quoting Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, § 119, 2013).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Article 41 ■ The Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction and awarded to each applicant EUR 250 in respect of costs and expenses.
CHAPODZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Application nos. 50599/16 and 10 others ■ Fourth Section Committee ■ 5 September 2024
Art 8 ■ Restrictions on family visits ■ Refusal of short-term or long-term family visits ■ Limitation on the frequency of short-term visits ■ Physical separation and supervision during visits ■ Refusal of phone calls to family members
Facts ■ The case concerned restrictions on family visits in remand prisons. Depending on the applicants, the restrictions took the form of refusal of long-term or short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, refusal of phone calls to family.
The applicants also faced a variety of other substantive and procedural violations pertaining to the conditions of their transfer, handcuffing in courtrooms, discrimination, belated review of their detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies.
Law ■ Article 8
General principles: Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35‑57, 2018; Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 2018; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 2019; Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 2020; Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 2021.
The Court recalled it had already found a violation of Article 8 in respect of issues similar to those of the present case and so saw no reason to depart from its findings.
The Court in particular found that the refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with the law” and that physical separations by means of a glass partition during visits was not “necessary in a democratic society” (§ 9).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Law ■ Other complaints
In the light of its well-established case-law on the respective matters, the Court also found violations of Articles 3 (conditions of transport, handcuffing in a courtroom, placement in metal cages in courtrooms), Article 5 § 4 (belated review of detention) Article 13 (lack of effective domestic remedy in respect of complaints under Article 8), Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (discriminatory visits policy vis-à-vis convicted prisoners).
The Court found that there was no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints by some of the applicants under Articles 13 (lack of domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms) and Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Articles 3, 5 § 4, 13, 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
Article 41 ■ The sums awarded varied between EUR 3,500 and 10,000, depending on the number and gravity of the violations found, as well as the duration of detention.
KROTOV v. UKRAINE (dec.) ■ Application no. 30289/17 ■ Fifth Section Committee ■ 5 September 2024
Art 3 ■ Inadequacy of medical treatment and care provided in detention ■ Applicant died during examination of the case ■ NGO found to lack locus standi
Article 37 § 1 (c) ■ Application struck out
Facts ■ The applicant, a prisoner with amputated legs and arms, complained that he was not provided appropriate care and medical treatment in detention.
On 7 July 2017 he was released from prison and transferred to a civilian hospital. He died on 13 August, after his release from hospital.
Following the applicant’s death, the NGO Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG) asked the Court to continue the examination of the case, and to accept their locus standi in relation to the applicant’s complaint under Article 3, in view of the general interest disclosed by it.
KHPG referred to the fact that it had incurred the costs of the applicant’s legal representation at the domestic level and before the Court, and that it had lodged a complaint at the domestic level about the authorities’ failure to secure the applicant’s right to life by not providing him with adequate medical treatment and delaying his release from prison (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, 2014).
The Court contacted the applicant’s parents asking whether they wanted to pursue the case but received no reply.
Law ■ Article 37 § 1 (c)
The Court rejected KHPG’s request for leave to act on the applicant’s behalf. It considered that although the case relied on a complaint under Article 3, it did not “raise a serious question of general interest” as it “relates to repetitive issues on which the Court has developed well-established case-law” (§ 14, see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 2006; Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 41216/13, §§ 139-53, 2019; Vagapov v. Ukraine, no. 35888/11, §§ 42‑50, 2020; and Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 51456/17, §§ 28‑29, 2023).
Despite the fact that the applicant had both of his arms and both legs amputated and was completely dependent on the help of other prisoners, the Court considered that the case did not disclose “any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols” (§ 15).
Conclusion ■ Application struck out from the list of cases.
DIANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 21286/15 and four others ■ Third Section ■ 10 September 2024
This summary focuses on the violation of the first applicant’s freedom of assembly and freedom of expression in respect of the hunger strike carried out in protest at the use of torture in Russian prisons.
Art 11 ■ Freedom of assembly ■ Termination by the police of a hunger strike in a public space and administrative conviction for participation in unauthorised “public event” ■ Use of torture in Russian prisons considered a “question of public interest” ■ Interference not shown to pursue a pressing social need and not “necessary in a democratic society”
Facts ■ The first applicant (Ms Dianova), a member of the Public Monitoring Commission (“PMC”, a body tasked with carrying out inspections in prison) of the Sverdlovsk Region at the material time, attempted to visit a detainee who had been beaten at a correctional colony, but was denied access to him.
Along with two other members of the PMC, Ms Dianova decided to hold a hunger strike to draw public attention to the detainee’s ill-treatment. They also requested that the Sverdlovsk Regional Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service (“the Sverdlovsk FSIN”) carry out an independent inquiry into the event.
They held the hunger strike near the Sverdlovsk FSIN building and engaged with the media and passers-by. The hunger strike did not impede pedestrian traffic, as the pathway was sufficiently wide.
On the fifth day of the hunger strike, police officers drew up administrative-offence records in respect of two of the strikers. Ms Dianova was subsequently fined RUB 10,000 for breaching the rules of participation in public events (approximately EUR 137, the equivalent of her monthly old-age pension, her only source of income at the time).
Ms Dianova complained that the actions taken by the police to put an end to the hunger strike and the subsequent administrative-offence proceedings, have violated her rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Law ■ Article 11
(a) Scope
The Court, noting that Ms Dianova and the other PMC members who joined her held a hunger strike to show support for the victims of ill-treatment in prison and to protest against a lack of access to them, held that it will examine Ms Dianova’s complaint in light of the general principles applicable to freedom of peaceful assembly (Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 142-148, 2018; Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 142-48, 2015).
(b) Whether the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim
The Court recalled that it previously found the legal framework on public events as broad and raising foreseeability concerns as it “allows executive authorities to define public events in a broad manner, enabling the police to end such events for non-compliance with the notification requirement, even in the absence of any nuisance” (Navalnyy, § 118).
The Court also noted that since the domestic law does not regulate hunger strikes other than in a penitentiary setting, the authorities applied the law on public events and qualified the hunger strike as a “static demonstration”, for which prior authorisation was required. The Court however observed that a “static demonstration” can only be authorised from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. The Court therefore observed that considering that “hunger strikes typically last for several days or even weeks, the interpretation adopted by the national authorities in the present case would appear to bar entirely the possibility of organising a hunger strike of any meaningful duration in a public space” (§ 67).
This led the Court to conclude that there were already serious doubts as to the “quality of the law” requirement.
The Court also doubted that the termination of the hunger strike pursued legitimate aims, in view of the fact that the protest was “peaceful and caused minimal disruption” (§ 69).
However, the Court refrained from reaching a conclusion at this stage since the interference was also found to be not necessary in a democratic society.
(c) Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society
The reasons put forward by the Government to justify the forced termination of the hunger strike (obstruction of circulation and deterioration of one of the strikers’ health) were found to be unconvincing by the Court. The small camp established by the strikers did not impeded pedestrians’ passage or cleaning of the road and did not exceed “the level of minor disturbance that is inherent to the normal exercise of the right to peaceful assembly in a public place” (§ 71) ; and as recalled in a previous case law, concerns about a striker’s health do not justify the termination of such protest (Cisse v. France, no. 51346/99, § 48, 2002).
The Court also found that Ms Dianova’s conviction was based on purely formal grounds and that domestic courts did not “address the public interest aspect of [her] actions, namely her efforts to draw attention to the use of torture in Russian penal facilities, while such questions of public interest enjoy privileged protection under the Convention” (§ 71 see also Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 163, 2016).
The Court concluded that the termination of the hunger strike and the subsequent conviction were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 11.
Article 41 ■ EUR 190 to Ms Dianova in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
TUGANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 14539/20 and
49 others ■ First Section Committee ■ 12 September 2024
SAUTIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 8936/20 and
50 others ■ First Section Committee ■ 12 September 2024
PANICHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Application no. 50058/12 ■ First Section Committee ■ 12 September 2024
Art 3 ■ Inadequate conditions of transport
Facts ■ The 151 applicants complained under Article 3 of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport (by train, van, detention in transit cells), due to i.a. overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of access to natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or restricted access to potable water and warm water, lack of or insufficient quantity and low quality of food, no or restricted access to the toilet and the lack of privacy in the toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, lack of safety belts.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court recalled it had found the problem of inadequate detention conditions during prisoners’ transport to be of a structural nature (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 in this respect.
It found a violation of Articles 3 in respect of each applicant (without substantive analysis).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Law ■ Other complaints: Article 13, Article 3, Article 8, Article 14
The Court also found a violation of Article 13, in most of the cases, as well as additional violations under Article 3 (confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom, poor conditions of detention) and Article 8 (constant video surveillance in prison cell, restriction on family visits), Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (discrimination vis-a-vis convicted prisoners).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 13, Article 3, Article 8, Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
Article 41 ■ The Court awarded a EUR 1,000 for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant to most of the applicants for the conditions of transport endured, irrespective of the length or the number of transports complained.
Several applicants were awarded increased compensations varying between EUR 5,000 and 12,200 in view of the additional violations of Article 3 pertaining to the inadequate conditions of detention or placement in metal cages in courtrooms and Article 8 pertaining to restrictions on family visits.
KURT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 29715/19 and
9 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 24 September 2024
Art 8 ■ Uploading of prisoners’ correspondence to a judicial IT server not provided for by law ■ Unpublished internal documents ■ Measure not “in accordance with the law”
Facts ■ The 10 applicants, who were detained in various prisons in Türkiye on charges of membership of an organisation referred to by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) following the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016, complained about the electronic recording and storage of their incoming and outgoing correspondence on the computer system of the National Judicial Network (Ulusal Yargı Ağı Bilişim Sistemi, UYAP) during their detention in various prisons in Türkiye.
The domestic courts rejected the applicants’ attempts to challenge this practice on the grounds that it was in line with the applicable law. The Constitutional Court rejected their applications as manifestly ill-founded.
Law ■ Article 8
The Court recalled it had already found a violation of Article 8 in similar cases (see especially Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey (nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, §§ 29-34, 2022) and saw no reason to depart from this conclusion.
In this case, the Court found that the impugned measure could not be considered as being “in accordance with the law” since it was based on instructions issued to public prosecutors and prison management, to which prisoners had no access.
Conclusion ■ No violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ Between EUR 100,000 and EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; between EUR 20,000 and 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
ÇİFTÇİ v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 27553/19 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 24 September 2024
Art 8 ■ Monitoring of meetings between a prisoner and his lawyer in prison ■ Absence of safeguards against arbitrariness
Facts ■ The applicant had been detained on charges of membership of the organisation named by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) and placed in pre-trial detention in a closed type prison.
The competent Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered that meetings between those in detention on those charges and their lawyers be monitored and video- and audio-recorded. The Public Prosecutor’s Office also ordered the monitoring of documents exchanged between prisoners and their lawyers. The applicant’s meetings with his lawyer were monitored between July 2016 and March 2018.
The measure was based on a legislative decree which had been adopted under the state of emergency declared in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état on 15 July 2016.
The applicant attempted to challenge this decision before domestic courts, which considered the measure to be in accordance with the law and procedure. The Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s complaint from the standpoint of the right to a fair trial and rejected his application as ill-founded for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the criminal proceedings against him were still ongoing.
Law ■ Article 8
(a) Admissibility
The Government argued that the applicant had failed to explain in substance how the impugned measure had violated his right to respect for his private life in his complaint before the Constitutional Court, that the application should be examined from the standpoint of the right to a fair trial and declared inadmissible, in line with the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. The Government also argued that the monitoring of his meetings with his lawyer did not cause significant disadvantage to the applicant.
The Court dismissed the Government’s objection. First, it observed that the applicant stated that the monitoring of his meetings with his lawyer had violated his right to private life before the Constitutional Court. Second, the Court recalled that “confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship being a fundamental rule which can only be derogated from in exceptional cases” (§ 17). Furthermore, in view of the long period during which the applicant’s meetings with his lawyer had been monitored (July 2016 – March 2018), the Court disagreed that the disadvantage suffered had been insignificant.
(b) Merits
The Court recalled that it had already found in previous cases that the legal basis on which the measure was based (section 6(1) (d) of Decree no. 667) “was liable to be arbitrary and incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness” (§ 22) in view of the wide discretion it gave to public prosecutors in imposing restrictions on prisoners’ communication with their lawyers (see Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 24074/19 and 2 others, §§ 101-106, 2023).
The Court found that the “absence of any safeguards against arbitrariness” (§ 23) in the legal basis invoked was not justified by the authorities in their derogation under Article 15 of the Convention, in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’État.
The Court considered that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaint (monitoring by prison authorities of the documents exchanged between the applicant and his lawyer during their meetings in prison).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8
Article 41 ■ EUR 9,750 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
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.
