APRIL-JUNE 2025

With this compilation, the European Prison Litigation Network, its members and partners across Europe aim to inform national lawyers and civil society organisations about the most important legal developments on prison issues. We hope it enables you to better identify European trends and use them in your legal practice.
It covers 14 European Union Member States as well as Ukraine, Moldova and Russia.

CONTENTS >> HEALTH, LBGTIQA+ , JUVENILES, MATERIAL DETENTION CONDITIONS, PENAL LAW, PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, RELIGION, SECURITY, SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT, TORTURE

BELGIUM ■ In June 2025, the Federal Equality Body (Unia) and the Central Prison Monitoring Council (CCSP) published a joint report on the situation of prisoners with mental health disorders. Based on coordinated visits conducted between June and September 2024 to psychiatric wings and social defence sections of five different prisons, the report focuses on four core areas: daily living conditions, staff capacity, therapeutic care environments and incident management.

Despite successive international judgments and recommendations, the report finds that prison mental-health care remains systemically under-resourced, contrary to therapeutic needs, and incompatible with the dignity of “patient-detainees”.

Unia and the CCSP have put forward targeted recommendations such as: standardising medical record-keeping and ensuring that all compulsory treatments are logged both in medical files and dedicated registers; extensively recruiting to expand psychiatric coverage and embed multidisciplinary teams (psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists); upgrading infrastructure; restoring hygiene facilities; training staff on mental-health rights and deontological standards; strengthening oversight via an independent monitoring committee, adopting and clear, enforceable protocols for sanctions and restraints.

POLAND ■ In May 2025, the Commissioner for Human Rights stressed the need to amend the procedure for informing prisoners’ relatives about a deterioration of their health. At present, such information is provided only if requested by relatives and with the prisoner’s consent. Where consent is absent and the prisoner’s condition prevents them from giving it, relatives are left without any access to information about their health. According to the Commissioner, the Executive Penal Code should be amended to require Prison Administrations to collect in advance a statement from each prisoner, designating the persons authorised to receive medical information (or declaring that no such persons exist). The Commissioner further noted that the obligation to establish such procedures follows from the European Prison Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules.

HUNGARY ■ In June 2025, a non-binary German national held in pre-trial detention initiated a hunger strike to protest against their detention conditions. Notably, they had been held in prolonged segregation, amounting to de facto solitary confinement, for almost a year.

This situation highlights shortcomings in the treatment of LGBTIQA+ individuals in prison in Hungary, where LGBTIQA+ prisoners receive little institutional protection, and mechanisms for asserting such rights remain virtually non-existent. The detainee’s prolonged isolation reflects the Prison Administration’s apparent reluctance to address the situation meaningfully, despite existing guidance on the placement and treatment of LGBTIQA+ detainees developed by civil society, UN, and CoE bodies.

After nearly three weeks of refusing food, their health deteriorated significantly, and they were transferred to the Prison Service’s Medical Centre for urgent care.

The individual in question had previously been transferred to Hungary by the German authorities under a European Arrest Warrant. This transfer was later deemed unlawful by the German Federal Constitutional Court (see our report from January-March 2025).

ch remains overcrowded), digitalising administrative processes, strengthening institutional capacities and promoting the social reintegration of detainees.

FRANCE ■ In May 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court partially annulled a Ministry of Justice instruction which introduced a general ban on “playful or provocative” activities in prison (19 May 2025, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2025:502367.20250519). The instruction had resulted in the cancellation or suspension of over 160 activities across at least 75 prisons, including yoga, board games, animal-assisted therapy, concerts, theatre workshops, and boxing or dance classes. The instruction, adopted on 19 February 2025, followed a prison guards’ union campaign denouncing the organisation of “facial care” workshops for prisoners on Valentine’s Day.

The Supreme Administrative Court ordered the lifting of the ban on playful activities. It recalled that the Penitentiary Code explicitly authorises detainees to participate in games with no financial stakes and requires prison administrations to provide a broad range of activities aimed at rehabilitation. It emphasized that the playful nature of an activity does not justify its prohibition.

However, the court allowed the possibility of maintaining a ban on “provocative” activities, limiting it to “activities which, because of their purpose, participant selection, or practical arrangements, are likely to undermine the respect due to victims.” Such decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis and cannot be imposed through a general prohibition. The Supreme Court specified that it is the responsibility of prison directors, under the supervision of the administrative judge, to assess any potential prejudice – not the Minister of Justice.

Although ‘playful’ activities were supposed to resume following the ruling, this has not occurred in many prisons due to the absence of implementing instructions from the Ministry of Justice. As a result, several organisations, including the French Section of the International Prison Watch, have filed complaints against the continued enforcement of the ban in multiple establishments.

GERMANY ■ In April 2025, the Higher District Court of Celle (Lower Saxony) ruled that the withdrawal of a benefit relating to detention conditions requires compelling justification (ECLI:DE:OLGCE:2025:0401.1WS23.25MVOLLZ.00). The case concerned a person held in a prison psychiatric facility who was transferred from a single room to a double room because another inmate needed a single cell. As the procedural law governing placements in forensic psychiatric facilities is governed by the Federal Prison Law, the judgment is also relevant in the prison context. Moreover, general rules – as in this case – apply mutatis mutandis in both areas of incarceration.

The administration failed to provide the affected prisoners with adequate justification. During the proceedings, it argued that the prisoner who was placed in the single cell instead of the applicant required this special treatment for therapeutic reasons, stated only in abstract terms, and in view of the fact that he had already been in custody for more than 20 years.

However, the Higher District Court dismissed these arguments as inadmissible (“Nachschieben von Gründen”) since they had not been set out in the initial decision to move the applicant from a single to a double cell but were raised only during the proceedings. The court further held that, because the applicant had previously been granted the benefit of a single room, the withdrawal of this benefit required particularly weighty reasons.

Also in April 2025, the Bavarian Highest District Court annulled a prison administration decision to limit the period during which cell doors would be open, citing staff shortages. The court stressed that it is the prison’s responsibility to plan its staffing levels accordingly (ECLI:DE:BAYOBLG:2025:0428.204STOBWS124.25.00).

The case originated in October 2024, when the preventive detention unit at Straubing prison decided that cells‘ doors will be unlocked at 8 a.m. instead of 6 a.m. on weekends, holydays and non-working days. The decision was issued by means of a “public notice” to all inmates. One detainee challenged the decision before the sentence enforcement court, who dismissed the case as inadmissible on the grounds that the“public notice” was not an individual decision concerning him.

The Bavarian Highest District Court held that the applicant’s appeal was admissible, as the “public notice” directly restricted his freedom of movement within the preventive detention unit. The court rejected the prison administration’s argument that this measure was necessary to enforce security and order, due to staff shortages caused by retirements, long-term illness and pregnancy leave. While the court accepted that unexpected staff shortages might justify temporary restrictions on cell-door opening hours, such reasons could not be invoked to justify restrictions of an extended duration. It underlined that planning adequate staffing is a core responsibility of the prison.

CZECH REPUBLIC ■ In May 2025, the Chamber of Deputies approved major penal reform that aims at reducing the prison population. While the Czech Republic has a prison density below 100%, several prisons are severely overcrowded, and the overall rate below 100% reflects the postponement to 2027 of a decree increasing the minimum personal space per detainee (see our report covering December 2024-February 2024). The implementation of the new standards would have increased the prison density rate. The amendments will enter into force on 1 January 2026.

In the field of sentencing, the reform lowers the upper limits of certain criminal penalties. This applies in particular to drug offences—especially possession of so-called soft drugs (e.g. cannabis)—and to repeat theft offences where the damage does not exceed CZK 10,000. The offence of neglecting maintenance obligations (non-payment of child support) has been decriminalised. In addition, courts will now be able to impose financial penalties instead of imprisonment even for more serious offences – particularly economic ones – whereas previously this option was limited to less serious crimes.

In the field of conditional release, the reform introduces a significant change: if a convicted person fulfils the statutory conditions, the court is now obliged to grant conditional release. Previously, conditional release was left to the court’s discretion, meaning that even those who met the conditions could still be denied release.

HUNGARY ■ In April 2025, Parliament has adopted a law amending the legislation relating to the prohibition of the production, use, distribution, and promotion of drugs. The new law introduces stricter provisions to both the Criminal Code and the Police Act, with the primary objective of curbing drug use through enhanced law enforcement measures and tighter supply-side regulations.

Firstly, the amendments limit the eligibility for diversion programmes (an alternative to criminal prosecution, whereby individuals found in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use can avoid criminal liability by voluntarily participating in a prevention course) to individuals who cooperate with the police in identifying their supplier.

Secondly, the amendments introduce harsher penalties for certain violent crimes if the perpetrator took drugs before committing the offence, and expand the definition of drugs to include new psychoactive substances (which are artificially produced intoxicating compounds not classified as traditional drugs such as cocaine or marijuana). Previously, offences involving these substances were treated as petty offences and were subject to lighter penalties.

Thirdly, individuals who have previously been convicted of a drug-related offence and reoffend within three years by engaging in drug trafficking will no longer be eligible for parole.

While the practical impact of these legislative changes remains to be seen, concerns have been raised that addressing drug-related offences exclusively through law enforcement, without complementary demand-reduction strategies such as preventive campaigns, may lead to an overburdened judicial system and ultimately to an increase in the prison population without achieving a substantial reduction in drug use.

ITALY ■ In June 2025 a security decree adopted in April 2025, introducing 14 new crimes and increasing penalties for 9 others, was converted into law. Conducts that were previously subject to administrative sanctions or misdemeanour penalties are now punishable by harsher penalties (e.g. occupying abandoned buildings, blocking a street during a demonstration). The law also introduces significant changes in the area of prison.

First, a new offence of “riot inside prison” (article 415bis of the Criminal Code) makes opposition to prison order, even passively, punishable by up to five year’s imprisonment (more in the presence of aggravating circumstances). Given the extremely difficult living conditions in Italian prisons, riots are frequent, particularly in medium-security wings. The new offence is therefore expected to trigger a rise in criminal proceedings and sentencing, further aggravating prison overcrowding.

Second, the law abolishes the obligation for judges to suspend for one year the detention of pregnant women or women with a child under the age of one. Under the new provisions, the suspension of detention is no longer mandatory but discretionary. Judges may also choose to send young mothers or pregnant women to special institutions (Istituti a custodia attenuate per detenute madri, ICAM), but only four such facilities currently exist nationwide. This provision is expected to increase the female prison population and may further deteriorate the already insufficient level of healthcare assistance available to mothers and children.

Major organisations (the national criminal law professors association [AIDPD], the national association of criminal attorneys [UCPI] and the national magistrates association [ANM]) consider the introduction of new offences and harsher penalties unreasonable and warn that they risk aggravating overcrowding.

Beyond the substance, the law is criticised for the atypical procedure having led to its adoption. The security decree was initially presented to Parliament as a draft law but was withdrawn following significant constitutional concerns raised by the President of the Republic. It was subsequently reintroduced as a law decree. From a constitutional perspective, the procedure is contested because the fundamental requirement of “extraordinary necessity and urgency” was absent. Furthermore, the decree was approved and converted into ordinary law by Parliament without thorough debate on individual provisions or on the law as a whole. As a result, criminal provisions were effectively drafted directly by the Government, which—under the Italian constitutional system—amounts to an abuse of the emergency law-making powers that may be granted to the executive only in exceptional circumstances.

HUNGARY ■ In the spring of 2025, prisoners began to be transferred to the newly built Csenger prison. The detention complex was originally designed to accommodate 1,500 inmates and was equipped with modern technological advancements (see also our report from March-May 2024). It was initially scheduled to open in September 2024.

No public announcement of the entry in function of the prison was made – it was the detainees themselves, their relatives and attorneys associated with the Hungarian Helsinki Committee began reporting that the transfer of inmates from other institutions across the country to the Csenger facility had started.

Due to this lack of communication, family members were left without essential details such as the correct mailing address for correspondence and packages, and the designated bank account for financial transfers to inmates transferred to the new institution. Several detainees also reported that their relocation to Csenger, which is located near the Romanian border (approximately three and a half hours’ drive from Budapest), had made in-person visits much more difficult for their families due to the increased distance.

In response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the National Prison Administration stated that, as of 30 April 2025, the new facility was housing 40 individuals. This number had risen to 229 by 31 May. As of 31 May, the official operational capacity of the institution was set at 500, which is significantly lower than the originally projected capacity of 1,500. It remains to be seen whether this capacity will be expanded in the foreseeable future.

ITALY ■ In April 2025, the Ministry of Justice issued “first guidelines” (indicating that subsequent versions may follow) to local prison administrations to implement detainees’ right to intimate visits.

Prisoners’ right to intimate visits with their partners without visual control was recognised by the Constitutional Court in January 2024 (see our report covering December 2023-February 2024). However, judges who examined prisoners’ requests for such visits, while acknowledging that these are individual rights, ruled that the practical ability to exercise this right depends on the capacity of the administration managing each facility to organise appropriate spaces and procedures.

One year after the Constitutional Court ruling, the Court of Cassation, reaffirmed that intimate visits are not merely an expectation or a benefit, but a full right for prisoners as they constitute an expression of the fundamental right to maintain and cultivate family relationships (Court of Cassation, section 1st, sent. Number 8/2025, 2 January 2025).

The April 2025 guidelines stress that the large number of prisoners concerned (17,000 out of 62,000 as of 31 December 2024) may pose practical challenges due to limited space, but emphasise that a lack of space cannot justify refusal of a request.

The guidelines indicates that priority should be given to prisoners who do not have other possibilities to spend time outside prison and meet their families, as well as to prisoners serving long sentences or who have been detained for a longer time (prisoners detained under the “41bis” special regime for prisoners suspected or convicted for mafia-type crimes are not eligible).

The guidelines also clarify the procedures to be followed, including how to gather information on the person with whom the prisoner requests an intimate visit and how to handle requests from “high-security” prisoners, for which advice must be sought from the local and national counter-mafia prosecutor offices.

Prison directors are instructed to provide rooms equipped with a bed and a bathroom, which are to be searched by the police before and after each visit, and the guidelines recommend installing a visual control system just outside the room and nearby spaces, as well as a sound alarm that may be activated from inside in case of danger.

Although these guidelines represent a significant step towards implementing prisoners’ right to intimate visits, the actual realisation of this right will remain dependent on regional prison administrations and individual prison directors, raising concerns about a possible territorially contingent implementation of the right.

BELGIUM ■ In April 2025, the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance, acting as an interim relief judge, ordered the State to comply with the decisions issued by the complaints commission and the appeal commission of the Haren prison that it had previously disregarded.

The case concerned a prisoner who had complained to the aforementioned commissions about special security measures (MSP), individual special security regimes (RSPI), and administrative measures such as visits through glass partitions. Although the commissions annulled these measures, the Prison Administration reinstated them under different names but with identical grounds.

The Court of First Instance found that there had been a serious violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy, and emphasised that the State must respect legal decisions issued by bodies established by law. It ordered the immediate cessation of the contested regimes and imposed a fine of EUR 5,000 per day of non-compliance.

This judgment highlights the concerning trend of undermining the recently introduced complaint mechanisms, thus posing a threat to the rule of law within the prison system. It therefore calls into question the effectiveness of the recently established complaints mechanisms designed to protect prisoners’ rights.

Considering that the Belgian complaints system is based on the Dutch one, which was praised by CoE bodies (see eg the ECtHR judgment Ananyev and others v. Russia, nos 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, § 215 and the CPT 2017 report on its visit the Netherlands, CPT/Inf (2017) 1, §§ 79-80), it is important to emphasise that this system has its limitations in the Belgian context.

BULGARIA ■ In May and June 2025, administrative courts have awarded inconsistent levels of compensation for rights violations resulting from inadequate detention conditions. While in a number of decisions administrative courts awarded reasonable amounts of compensation, in others the level of compensation remained very low casting doubts on the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy governed by Article 284 of the Execution of Punishment and Pre-Trial Detention Act (EPPTDA).

This has particularly been the case with the administrative courts in Plovdiv reviewing cases on detention conditions at the Plovdiv Prison, which is currently overcrowded. In distinct decisions, courts have for instance awarded compensation ranging between BGN 4 and 8 per day spent in inadequate detention conditions, while professionals that an adequate compensation for a minor violation could not be below BGN 20 per day.

Specifically, courts have awarded BGN 294 (EUR 150) to a prisoner who spent 42 days in an overcrowded cell with less than 3 sq.m. of personal space (No. 4454 of 15.05.2025 in Adm. Case No. 682/2025), BGN 1447 (EUR 742) to a prisoner who spent 370 day in similar conditions (Decision No. 4453 of 15.05.2025 in Adm. Case No. 2654/2024), and BGN 1584 (EUR 812) to a prisoner who spent 198 day in similar conditions (No. 4536 of 19.05.2025 in Adm. Case No.416/2025) and BGN 369 (EUR 189) to a prisoner who spent 47 days similar conditions (No. 5256 of 11.06.2025 in Adm. Case No. 681/2025). The decisions are not available online.

GERMANY ■ In May 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that the deportation of a prisoner held in preventive detention does not bring parole proceedings to an end, given the significant infringement of the right to freedom that placement in preventive detention represents (2 BvR 280/22, 7 May 2025).

The case concerned a non-German national who had been detained in a forensic psychiatric facility since 1996 for various offences including bodily harm, sexual offences and forced prostitution. Following his release from the psychiatric prison facility in 2007, he was placed in preventive detention in 2008 by court order.

In April 2021, the relevant Sentence Enforcement Court ruled that preventive detention would not be suspended or terminated. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Higher District Court, but was deported to his country of nationality before the court could consider his case. The court considered that, having been deported, the applicant had no legal interest in a decision upon not terminating preventive detention, and therefore the proceedings were terminated.

However, the FCC disagreed with the Higher District Court’s analysis. It stressed that decisions not to terminate a preventive detention consist of two aspects – one concerning the future (the circumstances at the time the case is reviewed) and one concerning the past (the circumstances at the time the case was initiated). According to the FCC, the Higher District Court failed to distinguish between these two aspects and only considered the future aspect, without examining whether the preventive detention was still lawful in April 2021 (i.e. the applicant was still considered dangerous and his further detention was still considered proportional).

The FCC decided that the applicant had a legal interest in having the decision of the Sentence Enforcement Court legally scrutinised. It stressed that by failing to examine the lawfulness of the applicant’s preventive detention, the Higher District Court violated his right to legal remedy enshrined in Article 19 para. 4 of the German Constitution.

Also in Germany, in June 2025, the Highest District Court of Bavaria held that prisoners are not entitled to receive a receipt confirming the submission of written requests to prison staff, while also ruling that it is the prisoners’ responsibility to prove that a request has been made (ECLI:DE:BAYOBLG:2025:0605.203STOBWS150.25.00). If a prisoner puts forward sufficiently substantiated arguments, the court may seek further evidence, the extent of which depends on the circumstances of the case. Written requests in Bavarian prisons are submitted via a standard form, used for all types of applications.

The case arose after a prisoner requested permission in writing to make a phone call with his sister on a specific date. On that date, the prison administration informed him that the call was not authorised, because no request had been filed in advance. No such request was found in the prison’s records. The prisoner challenged the decision and additionally requested a receipt confirming that his written request had been received – though he could not recall the exact date on which he had filed it.

The Sentence Enforcement Court reviewed the prison’s files on telephone requests (without finding the applicant’s request) and ruled that it was unlawful to deny the prisoner a prompt decision on his telephone application. It further held that the prison must decide anew whether to provide confirmations of receipt for prisoners’ applications.

The prison administration appealed to the Bavarian Highest District Court. The court quashed the Sentence Enforcement Court’s ruling, holding that it amounted to a general order for the future rather than judicial review of a specific administrative act.

The Court also ruled that, since the prisoner could neither specify the date of his request nor provide any proof of submission, and no such request appeared in the prison records, the denial of the telephone call was lawful.

The Court clarified that it is the prisoner’s responsibility to produce evidence that a request has been filed (despite the practical difficulty that prisoners usually cannot make copies). Only once some evidence is presented may the Sentence Enforcement Court seek further proof. The Court also stated that a prisoner has the right to apply for a receipt confirming a specific request in the future; if such an application is denied, the prisoner may challenge the denial before the courts, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Court did not address whether such an application would be successful, nor what reasons might justify a refusal.

POLAND ■ In May 2025, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) addressed the Polish Minister of Justice, drawing attention to systemic shortcomings in the publication of legal acts governing the operations of the Polish Prison Service. According to HFHR, the Prison Service does not maintain its own official journal for publishing orders of the Director General or Regional Directors, nor are these acts published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice. In HFHR’s view, this practice violates the Polish Act on the Promulgation of Normative Acts, which requires all normative acts to be officially published, regardless of whether they have general applicability or only internal effect.

HFHR notes that there is currently no single, accessible source compiling all administrative orders issued by the Prison Service. The relevant section of the Prison Service’s Public Information Bulletin leads to a blank page, making it impossible for the public to access the applicable legal framework. Meanwhile, the Prison Service’s own legal acts database, managed by its training centre, has not been updated for years. The Foundation warns that these orders may significantly affect prisoners’ rights – for example, by defining methods for calculating cell floor area.

In light of these concerns, HFHR urged the Minister of Justice to take immediate action requiring the Director General of the Prison Service either to maintain a dedicated official journal or to publish Prison Service normative acts in the Ministry of Justice’s official journal. HFHR stresses that such publication is essential to ensure legal certainty, allow precise determination of the applicable legal framework at any given time, and provide the basis for holding authorities accountable for enforcing obligations imposed by such acts.

PORTUGAL ■ In April 2025, the Lisbon Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure preventing judges from intervening in a “trial, appeal or request for review relating to proceedings in which [they have] (…) previously participated”, do not extend to sentence adjustment proceedings (22 April 2025, no. 1995/22.9TXLSB-H.L1-5).

The case specifically concerned early release proceedings. The judge reviewing the request for early release had previously acted as an associate judge (juíza adjunta) in the judgment sentencing the appellant to four years’ imprisonment.

Also in Portugal, in June 2025, the Lisbon Court of Appeals held that it lacked competence to review a decision taken by sentence execution court refusing a prison leave, because such decisions are delivered orally (no. 1608/12.7TXLSB-AL.L1-9). Under Portuguese law, there are two categories of prison leave: shorter prison leaves, for which the prison service is competent, and longer leaves, granted by a judge. While the public prosecution service may appeal both the granting and refusal of leave, prisoners themselves cannot appeal these decisions (except where a leave is revoked for non-compliance with its conditions). 

In recent judgments reflecting a shift in approach (no. 652/2023, and no. 202/2005), the Constitutional Court ruled that denying prisoners the right to appeal refusals of prison leave is unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal’s ruling runs contrary to this developing line of constitutional case law. 

Finally, in June 2025, the Lisbon Court of Appeals ruled that decisions of Sentence Execution Courts on complaints against orders of prison directors imposing disciplinary measures are final and cannot be appealed (28 June 2025, no. 6379/10.9TXLSB-AR.L1-9). The Court based its reasoning on Article 235 of the Code of Execution of Sentences, which enumerates the appealable decisions of these courts (termination of custodial sentences and security measures involving deprivation of liberty; granting, refusal and revocation of provisional cancellation of criminal records; decisions handed down in supplementary proceedings).

SPAIN ■ In May 2025, The Catalan regional government published an information leaflet for prisoners to provide clear guidance on how they can exercise their right to religious freedom.

The leaflet was drafted by the Directorate General of Penitentiary Affairs in collaboration with the Directorate General of Religious Affairs, in line with Instruction 1/2005, regulating the right to receive religious attention in the penitentiary environment, with guarantees prisoners’ fundamental right to religious freedom and requires the state to inform prisoners of this right. Available in four languages (Catalan, Spanish, Arabic and Romanian), the leaflet contains practical information on accessing religious assistance in penitentiary centres, including details of the various religious communities offering services in Catalonian prisons, the activities held in penitentiary centres, and the procedure for requesting food that aligns with religious beliefs. The Department of Justice is committed to promoting the visibility of the material in everyday areas and during common activities in penitentiary centres.

FRANCE ■ In June 2025, a law establishing a special strict detention regime for prisoners suspected or convicted for offences related to organised criminality was adopted (law no. n° 2025-532 of 13 June 2025, supplemented by the implementing decree of 8 July 2025 specifying the features of the strict detention regime). According to the Ministry of Justice, this new regime should concern up to 700 individuals deemed “particularly dangerous”.

Placement under this security regime applies only to adult prisoners and must be used “on an exceptional basis, in order to prevent the continuation or establishment of links with organised crime and delinquency networks, regardless of the purposes and forms of the latter.” (Article 61 of the law, modifying the Penitentiary Code). However, the broad wording raises doubts as to whether the measure will in fact remain exceptional.

The decision on placement is taken by the Ministry of Justice, following consultation with the sentence enforcement judge (for convicted prisoners), or with the investigative (for remand prisoners) – unless the latter objects.

Prisoners concerned are informed in writing by the prison director of the reasons for their placement, the procedure to be followed, and the time available to submit written or oral observations. They are entitled to consult their case file, but information whose disclosure could endanger individuals or prison security is redacted or withheld, which constitutes a serious limitation.

The prisoner’s observations are then transmitted to the Minister of Justice, who issues a reasoned decision. This decision is immediately notified to the inmate by the prison governor. It may be challenged before the Administrative Court, but such an appeal has no suspensive effect.

Placement is valid for one year and may be renewed indefinitely. Renewal follows the same procedure, but the prison director must also obtain the written opinion of the prison’s doctor, although the law does not clarify whether the Minister is bound by an unfavourable or reserved opinion.The Minister of Justice verifies that the reasons for the detainee’s placement in the organized crime unit still justifies, at the date of this new examination, the continuation of the placement. If this is not the case, the measure is terminated.

At each renewal, the Minister must verify whether the grounds justifying placement still apply; otherwise, the measure must be lifted. Placement may also be terminated at any time by the Minister or at the prisoner’s request.

According to the authorities, the detention regime is modelled on the Italian “41bis” regime. Prisoners are systematically strip-searched after any unsupervised physical contact during visits or missions. The Inter-Regional Director of Penitentiary Services may adjust the method and frequency of such searches to account for the prisoner’s health, vulnerability, or the visitor’s identity. Full-body searches are not carried out after visits conducted with a separation device, nor after visits by the French NPM, the Defender of Rights, or other authorised administrative or judicial authorities.

Prisoners under this regime are barred from family life units and family visits. Visits must take place in a separation-equipped visiting room, except in the case of children under 16 over whom the prisoner has parental authority. In exceptional family circumstances or where the visitor has a disability, the inter-regional director may waive the separation requirement.

Telephone access is restricted to two consecutive hours on two days per week. These restrictions do not apply to communications with lawyers, the French NPM, or the Defender of Rights and their delegates.

Prisoners may spend at least one hour per day outdoors and participate in activities, but separately from other detainees in the unit where security so requires. They are excluded from general prison work or collective activities such as catering, cleaning, or library access.

GERMANY■ In June 2025, the Higher District Court of Hamm (North Rhine-Westphalia) ruled that sentence enforcement courts have full powers to review the necessity of imposing shackles on prisoners granted supervised prison leave (ECLI:DE:OLGHAM:2025:0613.1VOLLZ469.24.00).

The case concerned a prisoner who had been granted supervised prison leave by the prison administration, under escort by two prison officers and with the use of a “Hamburg Shackle” (Hamburger Fessel – a special type of handcuff connecting the wrists to the opposite ankle through the inside of the trousers). The prisoner had previously been granted supervised prison leave with these shackles.

He challenged the prison administration’s decision to impose the shackle for this second supervised prison leave. The Sentence Enforcement Court upheld the prison administration’s decision, holding that the modalities of prison leave fell within the administration’s discretion.

The applicant appealed to the Higher District Court, which overturned the Sentence Enforcement Court’s decision. The Higher District Court held that, while the decision to grant leave itself lies within the prison administration’s discretion and is therefore subject to limited judicial review (in which case courts may only require the administration to decide anew), the imposition of shackles is a distinct security measure which the Sentence Enforcement Court must review fully and decide upon independently. The Higher District Court therefore ordered the Sentence Enforcement Court to reconsider the case, with full powers of review.

LITHUANIA ■ In April 2025, the Prison Service formally established specialised units for prisoners considered at higher risk of psychological or physical violence. The order creating these units (officially called SANS) also sets out the conditions, procedure, and time limits for transferring prisoners to a unit, as well as the grounds for removal in cases of rule violations or changes in a prisoner’s legal status. At present, SANS units exist only in Marijampolė Prison, where the pilot phase was implemented, while preparations are underway to establish another unit in Alytus Prison

AUSTRIA ■ In June 2025, the Austrian Parliament adopted amendments to the Austrian Prison Act, with the aim of easing pressure on the national budget and alleviating severe overcrowding in Austrian prisons. This aim is to be achieved by broadening prisoners’ access to conditional release (with effect on 1 January 2026) and by extending the eligibility criteria for house arrest under electronic monitoring (with effect on 1 September 2025). The amendments were passed as a Budget Accompanying Act for 2025 (‘Budgetbegleitgesetz’).

Firstly, prisoners will have easier access to conditional release. While under the previous legal framework (§ 46(2) of the Criminal Code), the authority in charge of decisions on conditional release had to take special prevention criteria (preventing reoffending) and general prevention criteria (deterring the commission of infractions by others) into consideration, only special prevention will be relevant to the conditional release decision under the new legal framework. According to the explanatory notes on the amendments, this measure aims to reduce the burden on prisons operating at high capacity.

The procedure for granting conditional release has also been changed. Rather than being made by a single judge as was previously the case, such decisions will now be made by a panel consisting of one professional judge and two expert lay assessors – one from the Probation Service and another from the Prison Service. This change reinforces the position of the Prison and Probation Services in the process, as they were only consulted by the single judge under the previous legal framework. However, this provision has been criticised by the Association of Judges, who argue that the new procedure will likely result in an increased administrative workload without corresponding increases in staffing.

Secondly, the amendments double (from 12 months to 24 months) the maximum length of a sentence, or remainder of a sentence, that can be served under electronically monitored house arrest using an electronic ankle tag. This change does not apply to individuals convicted of terrorist or sexual offences. According to the explanatory notes, the decision to broaden the eligibility criteria is justified by the beneficial effect it has on prisoners’ rehabilitation.

House arrest with electronic monitoring has been in place in Austria since 2010 (§ 156b of the Prison Act). Prisoners are required to remain at their residence and to engage in appropriate employment or activities – such as paid work, training, childcare, community service, or other reintegration-focused endeavours. Prisoners may leave their residence only for work, essential errands, or medical treatment.

To be eligible for house arrest offenders must have suitable accommodation in Austria, gainful employment, sufficient income to support themselves, and health insurance. They must also obtain written consent from any cohabiting household members. Following an assessment of living conditions, social environment, and risk factors, it must be determined that the offender is unlikely to abuse this form of sentence execution. Time served under electronic supervision is credited directly against the custodial sentence.

LITHUANIA ■ In April 2025, the Lithuanian Prison Service inaugurated a new specialised unit in Vilnius Prison, known as TOG, dedicated to preparing prisoners prone to reoffending for conditional release. The Vilnius unit is funded by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism and is based on a programme originally launched in 2001. This is the second TOG unit in Lithuania, following the first established in Pravieniškės Prison No. 1 in December 2022. In those units,probation officers work closely with prison staff to develop structured reintegration plans and monitor behavioural changes, with the aim of reducing reoffending risks.

POLAND ■ In April 2025, the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights submitted a formal communication to the Director General of the Prison Service, recommending the introduction of a requirement to issue individual administrative decisions in cases involving the placement of prisoners in monitored cells.

The Polish Executive Penal Code permits the monitoring of premises within prisons and remand centres. The decision as to which areas are subject to surveillance rests with the director of each penitentiary facility, with the aim of ensuring order and security. In the Commissioner’s view, this regulation implies an obligation to issue individual decisions regarding the placement of a prisoner in a residential cell under surveillance. He notes, however, that such individual decisions are not currently issued by the prison authorities.

According to the Commissioner, any decision to apply surveillance to a prisoner should result from an individualised assessment of the necessity of the measure. In his opinion, constant monitoring should be limited solely to prisoners for whom there is a well-founded suspicion that they pose a threat to the order and security of the institution, or to their own safety and health.

The Commissioner further emphasises that issuing an individual administrative decision concerning placement in a monitored cell would enable judicial review of such measures. He also points out that current practice across penitentiary institutions is inconsistent: some facilities, when placing a prisoner in a monitored cell, issue a corresponding decision and deliver it to the prisoner.

This position is not shared by the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service, who argues that the requirement to issue such decisions is not supported by the current legal framework. In their view, this is confirmed by the 2022 amendment to the Executive Penal Code, which removed provisions that had previously imposed a direct obligation to issue decisions subjecting prisoners to video surveillance.

UKRAINE ■ Recent reports of state institutions exposing cases of torture in prisons are indicative of the persistence of the phenomenon, as well as the increased efficiency of procedures aiming at combatting it.

In April 2025, the State Bureau of Investigations reported that an investigation conducted with the assistance of the State Criminal-Executive Service, had exposed the alleged systemic use of torture against prisoners in Poltava prison. Four prison staff were taken into custody as a result. A special room in the prison’s medical unit was allegedly used as a “torture chamber”, where prisoners who refused to cooperate with the administration, violated internal rules, or complained about the actions of staff were reportedly tied to a metal bed and deprived of food, water or access to a toilet for several days. One of the victims was reported to have endured such cruel treatment more than ten times in the last three years. Attempts to destroy video recordings from surveillance cameras were allegedly made, but the evidence was seized. The investigation is ongoing.

Also in April 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor General announced that nine prison staff members and five prisoners were suspected of involvement in the death of a prisoner – including prison inspectors, medical staff, and senior and duty officers. On a given date, five prisoners, including one with the status of “overseer” (смотрящий) in the informal prisoner hierarchy, allegedly beat the prisoner. In order to conceal the crime, prison staff allegedly falsified documents concerning the prisoner’s state of health, placed him in solitary confinement for an alleged violation of prison rules, and withheld medical assistance. The victim was only taken to hospital the next day, where he died. The indictment against five prisoners was sent to court in August 2025. The investigation into nine prison staff has been completed: four indictments are already in court, and the rest are under review.

In June 2025, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv announced that seven employees of the Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre were suspected of being involved in a prisoner’s death – including the former acting head of the prison. Upon admission, the prisoner was allegedly placed in a cell with a convicted prisoner –a gross violation of the law – with the intention of “educating” him. A few hours later, the newly arrived prisoner was allegedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness and left without assistance. He died during the night from severe injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, broken bones, and damage to internal organs and soft tissue. The prison administration allegedly tried to conceal the circumstances by reporting a false version of events, stating that the prisoner had died during a fight. The investigation is ongoing.

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, the European Commission or the Robert Carr Fund. Neither the European Union and the European Commission nor the Robert Carr Fund can be held responsible for them.