JANUARY-MARCH 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 >> EU INSTRUMENTS, HEALTH, JUVENILES, LENGTH OF SENTENCES, MATERIAL DETENTION CONDITIONS, NGOs/NHRI, PRE-TRIAL DETENTION, PRISON REFORM, PRISONS IN WARTIME, PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, SECURITY, SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT, TECHNOLOGY

AUSTRIA ■ In January 2025, the Ministry of Justice published a report on the application of the Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the Mutual Recognition of Judgments in Criminal Matters. The report focuses on the transfer of prisoners to their home countries. With more than half of Austrian prisoners being non-Austrian nationals, such transfers have been used not only to enhance the social rehabilitation of prisoners, but also to alleviate prison overcrowding and reduce prison operating costs.

The report highlights three types of limitations:

• The report notes that there are different ways of calculating the time remaining to be served by transferred prisoners and suggests that EU-wide guidelines should be drawn up to ensure consistency between Member States, which would increase mutual trust. The transfer process suffers from significant delays with EU Member States taking between seven months and one year, and non-EU countries up to two years, to process requests (Annexes I and II of the report provide the number of requests and transfers per year and per country, as well as the average duration of such procedures). These delays have sometimes made transfers impractical, particularly for prisoners with short remaining sentences. The report notes that since 2018 (i.e. when the Court of Auditors reviewed the application of the Framework Decision), the number of transfers has increased, and the average processing time has been reduced.
• Prisoners can be transferred to their home country without their consent if they are deprived of their right to stay in Austria as a result of an immigration decision
• The report notes that there are different ways of calculating the time remaining to be served by transferred prisoners and suggests that EU-wide guidelines should be drawn up to ensure consistency between Member States, which would increase mutual trust.

GERMANY ■ In January 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) issued a final decision on the surrender of a non-binary person to Hungarian authorities for detention in prison pending trial (no. 2 BvR 1103/24, 24 January 2025). The FCC declared that the ordinary court that had authorised the transfer had failed to thoroughly assess the conditions of detention that the person would face in Hungary, despite indications that the complainant might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The case concerned Maja who was suspected by the Hungarian authorities of having attacked neo-Nazi activists during the “Day of Honour” organised in Budapest in February 2023. The complainant was arrested in Germany in December 2023 based on a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by the Hungarian authorities. On 27 June 2024, the Berlin Higher Regional Court authorised the surrender. The next morning at 7:38 am, the complainant’s lawyer filed an application with the FCC to stop the surrender by ordering an interim measure. The FCC granted the interim measure at 10:50 am. However, the complainant had already been handed over to Austrian authorities at 6:50 am and then to the Hungarian authorities at around 10:00 am.

In its final decision, the FCC argued that although the transfer had already taken place, the complainant still had a legal interest to act. It stated that the Berlin Higher Regional Court had failed to properly assess the conditions of detention to which the complainant would be subjected. Despite a note from the Hungarian authorities that the complainant would not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in prison, the complainant had submitted evidence to the contrary (including reports from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and affidavits from persons detained in Hungary).

BULGARIA ■ In February 2025 alone, two different administrative courts issued contradictory judgments as to whether the review of medical activities in prisons and referrals to external medical facilities fall within the scope of the preventive remedy against inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 276 of the Execution of Punishment and Pre-Trial Detention Act, EPPTDA).

A number of courts have held that the failure of prison doctors and the administration to provide medical care to prisoners may constitute inhuman and degrading treatment and should therefore be addressed under the preventive remedy (see e.g. the order no. 399/03.02.2025 issued by the Pazardzhik Administrative Court in case no. 53/2025 [not available online], and the ruling of the Varna Administrative Court no. 1268/04.02.2025 in case no. 77/2025).

Conversely, the Pleven Administrative Court rejected this approach (see ruling no. 394/04.02.2025 in case no. 1001/2024). In this case, a prisoner in Pleven Prison complained that the prison “feldsher” (a medical practitioner without full professional qualifications) changed his therapy prescribed by a doctor and that the prison governor refused to propose to refer him to a surgeon. The court dismissed the application. It held that the feldsher’s action did not constitute an “action or inaction” by the prison administration within the meaning of EPPTDA Article 276, but rather an “expert activity related to the diagnostics, treatment, and rehabilitation of a sick person”, which does not fall within the scope of Article 276. Similarly, the court considered that the prison governor’s refusal to propose to refer the prisoner to a medical specialist did not fall within the scope of Article 276 because it was a refusal to issue an administrative act, not an “action or inaction”. This second line of case law is of a serious concern, because it narrows the scope of the review under the preventive remedy.

Also in Bulgaria, a recent case of a seriously ill prisoner who died a day after being provisionally released once again demonstrates that the lack of a mechanism to permanently suspend the execution of a prison sentence on health grounds is a significant shortcoming in the national legal framework. Under national law (Article 447, para 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), a prisoner whose state of health is incompatible with detention may only be released on a temporary basis and for a short period “until recovery” by order of a public prosecutor.

The case concerned an Italian citizen, Enrico Bassoni, aged 73, who had lived in Bulgaria for more than 25 years with his family in Plovdiv. In 2023, he was sentenced in Italy to two years’ imprisonment for fraud. Because of his health, a Bulgarian court ruled that he was not fit to travel to Italy. The sentence was therefore to be served in Bulgaria. After his admission to prison, the applicant’s health deteriorated further. In July 2024, a medical commission declared him to be a 100% disability rate and in need of external assistance as he was unable to take care of himself (over time he became bedridden). He spent most of his time in prison in the Specialised Hospital for the Active Treatment of Prisoners (SHATP), which is part of Sofia Central Prison and is notorious for failing to provide even basic health care to prisoners.

Mr Bassoni applied for and was granted short medical leaves to receive some medical care outside prison. By the end of 2024, he had spent only four months in prison – the rest on leave. On 7 January 2025, he applied for 60 days’ leave, but the public prosecutor granted only 30 days. On 13 February, one day before he was due to return to prison, Mr Bassoni applied to the ECtHR for interim measures, asking the court to request that the authorities not return him to prison on account of his state of health. The court granted interim measures, but failed to request that the applicant not be returned to prison. Instead, it asked for a full assessment of his health and the compatibility of his health with his detention.

The authorities called Mr Bassoni to the prison for a medical examination. He was left without any assistance in the prison hospital for a week. He was found to be unfit to serve a prison sentence, but by a decision of a public prosecutor, he was again given only three months’ leave “until recovery”. Meanwhile, in the prison hospital, he fell and broke his shoulder. When his partner picked him up from prison, she took him straight to hospital, where he died the next day after surgery.

GERMANY ■ In January 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) rejected a prisoner’s request for assisted suicide because the reason given (the “lack of prospects” due to his long prison sentence combined with his old age) was considered insufficient (2 BvR 1290/24, 31 January 2025). The FCC confirmed that prisoners have the right to assisted suicide, like any other person outside prison (see FCC, nos 2 BvR 2347/15 and 5 others, 26 February 2020). However, it also stressed that the situation in prison and the vulnerability of prisoners oblige the prison authorities to examine the prisoner’s arguments before granting assistance in committing suicide, in order to assess their free will to do so.

The prison administration rejected the applicant’s request after he refused to explain why and how he wanted to commit suicide. In subsequent court proceedings, he explained that the fact that he was serving a long prison sentence, that he was to be placed in preventive detention after serving his sentence, and that he was old, led to a “lack of prospects”. The courts of first instance rejected this as insufficient to authorise assisted suicide. The FCC confirmed this analysis, stressing that applicants for assisted suicide must give detailed reasons for their request and the way in which they wish to commit suicide, so that the prison administration can assess the possibilities.

MOLDOVA ■ In January 2025, the Director of the National Prison Administration approved the Activity Plan for the prison administration for 2025 (see Order No. 17/2025). This strategic document outlines institutional priorities and reform initiatives aimed at aligning the country’s penitentiary system with European prison standards.

A key area of the Action Plan is improving prisoners’ access to healthcare (Sectoral Objective III). The Action Plan outlines systemic interventions to address identified risks, including internal risks (such as a shortage of qualified medical personnel, overburdened and demotivated staff, divided loyalties of medical staff, who are subordinated to prison directors while also being responsible for safeguarding the health and rights of detainees, and involvement in non-medical tasks), as well as external risks (such as insufficient financial resources for implementing accreditation standards, weak cooperation with the Ministry of Health, and the marginalisation of prison healthcare in national public policy frameworks).

In this context, the plan sets out concrete actions such as transferring responsibility for healthcare from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health (Action 42), which was recommended by the UN Committee Against Torture as early as 2017 (the Committee’s position is referenced in the ECtHR case Cosovan v. Moldova, no. 13472/18, 2022). Other actions include the development of institutional clinical protocols (Action 27), the evaluation and accreditation of medical services by the National Evaluation and Accreditation Commission responsible for evaluating and accrediting medical service providers to ensure compliance with national standards of healthcare quality and safety, Action 30) and the adoption of a Code of Ethics for medical staff (Action 29).

The Action Plan also covers key areas such as modernising prison infrastructure (with a particular emphasis on improving the critical condition of facilities such as Prison No. 13 in Chișinău, which remains overcrowded), digitalising administrative processes, strengthening institutional capacities and promoting the social reintegration of detainees.

AUSTRIA ■ In March 2025, the Ombudsperson’s Office issued a statement criticising the opening of a new juvenile detention centre in Vienna in January 2025. The statement notes that the prison was opened despite the fact that the facility is not fully operational: only one of the three wings is usable, school-age inmates have to be transported daily to another Vienna juvenile prison (Josefstadt Prison) in order to attend school, staffing is insufficient, telephones are only partly functional, visits remain limited and medical care arrangements are unclear. In addition, the Josefstadt Prison still handles basic supplies and disciplinary matters.
Recently, the Ombudsperson’s Office published a report highlighting structural problems in the juvenile justice system (see our issue covering August-September 2022).

SPAIN ■ Since the adoption of an organic law in January 2025, the procedure for calculating custodial sentences (liquidación de condena) has been formally regulated for the first time (Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January 2025 on measures for the efficiency of justice). The aim is to avoid the fragmentation of procedures and decisions caused by the almost total absence of legislation in this area, and to bring them together in a single procedure. The calculation of the custodial sentence can be defined as the certificate issued by the Legal Secretary of the Administration of Justice of the sentencing court, indicating the duration of the sentence imposed in the final judgement.

In accordance with the new article 988 bis, paragraph 4, introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure by Organic Law 1/2025, this certificate must contain the following information: a) the date on which the sentence began to be served; b) if applicable, the time to be deducted for the provisional deprivation of liberty or for the application of any other precautionary measure; c) the length of the sentence; and d) the time to be served.

For these purposes, the calculation shall be made in years, months and days according to the following rules: full months shall be 30 days, and full years shall be 365 days. The convicted person, as well as the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the other parties directly involved in the criminal proceedings shall be informed of the content of this certificate and may contest it within two days.

Once the time limit has expired without objection, the Legal Secretary of the Justice Administration shall approve it by decree. If the content of the certificate is contested by any of the parties, the other parties will be notified so they can present their arguments within two days. Once this period has elapsed, the judge or court shall rule by means of an order, which shall be issued within two days.

If the convicted person is in prison, this certificate is sent to the prison to be entered in their  file and is the basis for the so-called “penitentiary spreadsheet”, which contains the calculations of the different dates of penitentiary repercussions (i.e. one quarter, half or two thirds of the sentence, etc.).

BELGIUM ■ In February 2025, in the face of structural and worsening overcrowding in prisons, the National Preventive Mechanism for prisons recommended introducing a binding ceiling for the number of prisoners per facility based on their actual capacity (see also a more recent press release). A consultation mechanism between judicial actors should be automatically triggered when a critical threshold is reached. The dual aim is to guarantee detainees’ dignity and relieve pressure on prison staff. This position is in line with recommendations from the CPT and recent findings of the Belgian Prison Council (a consultative body set up in 2024 to advise the Federal Ministry of Justice on prison policy composed of legal professionals, academics and representatives of prison-related public administration). It reflects a desire for structural change in the system, based on the recognition that overcrowding is not inevitable but the result of political choices.

In this context, the Federal Ministry of Justice has also called for reform of the penal system, saying a “debate is needed on sentencing,” without mentioning any concrete measures or guidelines. As an emergency measure, the Ministry of Justice temporarily suspended the enforcement of prison sentences of less than three years. However, this decision was not followed by prosecutors who, in protest at recent pension reforms for judges, announced that they would enforce all prison sentences – affecting some 4,000 people.

A decisive action by the authorities appears urgent as demonstrated by the 18 February 2025 judgment from the Brussels Court of Appeal. The Belgian state was condemned for prison overcrowding and inhuman detention conditions at the Saint-Gilles Prison (a lack of heating, the presence of rats, general unsanitariness and out-of-service showers) and the Haren Prison, which opened recently and is already overcrowded (1,169 inmates for 1,035 places). The court imposed fines of EUR 2,000 per day, per inmate above the official capacity for Haren, and EUR 1,000 for each documented violation for Saint-Gilles.

It is rare for a civil court to condemn the state for inadequate detention conditions, especially given the recent introduction of a new complaint procedure for prisoners. Following similar rulings, this underscores the collapse of the Belgian prison system. It highlights the ineffectiveness of policies that have failed to address chronic, structural issues such as overcrowding and physical decay.

POLAND ■ In March 2025, the Commissioner for Human Rights sent a letter to the Minister of Justice requesting an increase in the daily minimum rates determining the cost of meals for prisoners. This rate, which has not been changed since 2016, currently stands at EUR 0.94. According to the Commissioner, this rate does not ensure adequate nutrition in prison. He based his assessment on the findings of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (KMPT), which, during its monitoring visits, noted a significant decline in the quality of meals provided to detainees – in particular, the absence of raw vegetables and fruit.

In response to the Commissioner’s intervention, the Ministry of Justice stated that it fully agreed with the view that the current food allowance rates were inadequate, particularly in light of the significant increase in food prices in recent years. In its view, failure to provide prisoners with adequate food could expose them to ill-treatment. He announced future legislation to increase the daily allowance.

LITHUANIA ■ In March 2025, the Supervisory Board of the Prison System held its first meeting. The Supervisory Board was established by the Ministry of Justice and is composed of representatives of state institutions (the Ministry of Justice, prison administration and, Ombudsperson’s office), human rights experts, academia and civil society organisations, including a prisoners’ union (Kaliniu sajunga).

The Supervisory Board reports directly to the Ministry of Justice and is tasked with making recommendations to improve the prison system. The Board’s roadmap includes proposals for measures to improve the internal rules of prisons, strengthen the probation and parole system, increase employment opportunities for prisoners, and evaluate the reintegration model and explore solutions to improve it.

RUSSIA ■ In February 2025, a new law amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and aiming to limit the use of pre-trial detention was adopted (Federal law of 28 February 2025, No. 13-FZ). The amendments were drafted by the Supreme Court and passed their first reading back in the State Duma (the lower house of the Parliament) in October 2023.

The law allows pre-trial detention only for violent criminal offences of “medium gravity” (punishable by three to five years’ imprisonment for intentional crimes and up to 10 years’ imprisonment for negligent crimes), or more serious offences. Before the amendments, pre-trial detention could be ordered for any medium gravity crime, violent or not violent. The law also limits the range of economic offences for which the measure could be applied. Only in specific cases (absence of permanent residence in Russia; failure to establish their identity; violation of a previously chosen preventive measure; absconding) may remand custody be applied to non-violent offences of medium gravity. By comparison, the previous legal framework allowed for the exceptional use of pre-trial in cases of “minor gravity” offences (punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment). The amendments also restrict the use of pre-trial detention for minors, pregnant women and mothers of minor children, single parents and guardians, and parents or guardians of disabled children. As a general rule, they may only be detained if they are suspected or accused of “grave” or “particularly grave” crimes (with a number of exceptions, where they may be detained on general grounds). In addition, the new amendments prohibit the detention of an accused person who suffers from a serious illness on a list to be adopted by the Russian government.

Simultaneously, however, the lawmakers have provided a broad list of crimes of varying degrees of seriousness for which pre-trial detention may be used – including offences such as “spreading fake news about the Russian army” and “discrediting the army”, which are widely used by the authorities to suppress dissent.

The amendments have been extensively criticised as cosmetic by several experts, including members of the Russian Federal Bar Association, who rightly pointed out that similar “humanisation” amendments have been made before and are unlikely to affect judicial practice and will not change the current trend of excessive use of pre-trial detention in Russia.

LITHUANIA ■ In March 2025, the newly formed government adopted an action plan to implement its programme presented in December 2024. One of the government’s priorities is to create “a modern, efficient and open system of penal enforcement”. Among other measures announced, the government decided to improve the prison infrastructure by creating new facilities and modernising existing ones, including the addition of 760 beds in single and double occupancy cells to improve living conditions by the end of 2028.

To improve the reintegration of socially vulnerable groups of prisoners, the government also announced behavioural correction programmes, new halfway houses, employment opportunities, and long-term addiction treatment centres. In addition, the plan aims to integrate the non-governmental sector and volunteers into the penal system to improve the reintegration process. The government also plans to reduce “bureaucratic procedures” by introducing a “modern digital solution for electronic services in the penal enforcement system” to facilitate data exchange, and to create “attractive working conditions” for prison staff, including by strengthening “the application of the dynamic security model”.

Unlike the programme presented in December 2024, the action plan doesn’t mention reviewing sentencing policy to make sentences more proportionate, promoting the use of community service to reduce the prison population, or measures to tackle prison subculture.

UKRAINE ■ In March 2025, the Penitentiary Service established an Advisory Expert Council, tasked with providing advice to the authorities on reforming the prison system to align it with international and European standards. However, the composition of the council raises doubts about whether the reform process will successfully bring Ukraine’s prison system into line with European standards. Not one of the most prominent NGOs working on prison issues (such as the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, and Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine) has been invited to sit among the council’s members. In contrast, two of the working groups of the council are chaired by prison officials who previously supervised facilities identified by the CPT as torture sites, and who have represented Ukraine’s confrontational stance towards the CPT and civil society.

Their involvement in reform efforts poses a significant risk of reviving repressive practices and legitimising questionable initiatives, particularly those aimed at restricting public oversight of prisons. This undermines trust in the reform process and raises doubts about the state’s ability to protect human rights in places of detention. More broadly, conferring such responsibility on those concerned shows a flagrant disregard for Ukraine’s obligations to combat impunity. It follows from the UN Convention against Torture that superior authorities cannot escape criminal responsibility for acts of torture or ill-treatment committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known such acts were being committed or were likely to occur, and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent them. Their responsibility – whether through direct instigation, encouragement, consent, or acquiescence – must be fully investigated by competent, independent, and impartial judicial authorities.

The chair of the working group “on the implementation of best international and European practices in the penitentiary system previously held senior positions in regional and interregional directorates, exercising direct authority over institutions where torture was routinely practised, notably Colony No. 77. The CPT reported that prisoners at this colony were systematically tortured. Following its visit, the CPT noted that, “over the last 30 years, [it had] hardly ever visited a prison with such large-scale refusals of prisoners to be interviewed” (see the 2020 CPT report on Ukraine, especially § 23). In 2019, leading human rights organisations active in the prison sector called for his dismissal, citing his serious human rights record. Civil society also reported that, in 2019, the Prison Service obstructed the investigation into systemic torture at this colony by putting pressure on torture victims of torture and failing to implement security measures ordered by the investigator.

The chair of the working group “on penitentiary system reform and probation development” served as Head of the Penitentiary Administration of the Kharkiv Region from 2012 to 2014. During this period, the CPT raised serious concerns regarding systematic torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence against prisoners at Correctional Colony No. 25 (see the 2013 CPT report on Ukraine, especially §§ 8 and 16). The CPT also noted that “the level of co-operation encountered was the poorest since the Committee’s first visit to Ukraine in 1998” (§ 7), that prisoners who tried to speak to the delegation were threatened and subjected to reprisals, and that staff provided prisoners with misleading information about the visit. These issues led the CPT to issue a public statement in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture  in the event of a State party’s lack of cooperation.

RUSSIA ■ In a judgment rendered in February 2025, the Supreme Court cited a classified joint order by the prison administration (FSIN), the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense of March 2024 on prisoner recruitment (see the judgment here). The case concerned a lifer who challenged the Ministry of Defense’s refusal to allow him to join the army. According to the cited order, the FSIN and the Ministry of the Interior prepare lists of potential candidates for recruitment by military commissariats from among current and former prisoners. Prisoners and ex-prisoners over the age of 65, those suffering from certain illnesses (e.g., haematological diseases) and lifers are to be excluded. However, as explained by the Supreme Court, regardless of whether a prisoner meets the criteria set out in the decree, his or her request to join the army may be considered and granted on an individual basis.

According to recent estimates, over 30,000 prisoners have been recruited for the “Storm Z” units of the Russian army, bringing the total number of prisoners recruited into the Russian army since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine to at least 80,000.

ROMANIA ■ In April 2025, new instructions on the right of prisoners to communicate online with their families were adopted. These instructions aim to replace older instructions from 2021 and to establish a uniform framework to regulate access to online communication. According to the instructions, prisoners can benefit from specially planned online communication after approval from the prison director. A maximum of two adults and two minors may participate in the communication. Exceptionally, if a prisoner has more than two minor children, the number of participating minors may be increased with the prison director’s approval.

SPAIN ■ As of February 2025, prisoners are now banned from wearing “black, dark blue or similar” clothing that could be confused with the new black and navy blue uniform prison officers have been wearing since 1 December 2024 (replacing the previous grey-green uniforms) to avoid security risks. This new uniform is compulsory for officers who have the most contact with prisoners, such as those assigned to surveillance and internal services areas.

HUNGARY ■ In February 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that seriously ill prisoners applying for home detention to receive appropriate care must be heard in person if they so request (no. IV/02168/2024, 4 February 2025). The court also emphasised that the ordinary courts hearing the case are not bound by the opinion of the prison doctor as to whether home detention should be granted but must make an individual assessment of the circumstances.

According to the relevant ministerial decree, home detention as a modality of execution of a prison sentence may be granted by a judicial decision to prisoners suffering from a chronic illness. The procedure involves an assessment by the prison doctor as to whether the person applying for home detention is largely or completely incapable of meeting their basic needs independently, requires constant assistance and care in their daily life, and is not expected to improve significantly in their state of health within a definable period of time. Eligible prisoners may serve their sentence at home or in any other suitable place where their care and assistance are guaranteed

The case concerned a prisoner suffering from lung cancer. His application for home detention was rejected by the competent courts of first and second instance because the prison doctor considered that he was able to meet his basic needs independently and did not require continuous assistance or care in his daily life. None of the courts heard the applicant in person, despite his lawyer’s requests to do so. Therefore, the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court, claiming that his right to a fair trial had been violated.

The Constitutional Court found that the ordinary courts had violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial by failing to hear him in person, despite his request to do so, and by basing their reasoning on the opinion of the prison doctor without conducting a substantive investigation. The court specified that the courts could refuse to hear the applicant in person only if the request lacked a legal basis and could be rejected without a substantive examination.

POLAND ■ In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice presented draft amendments to the Executive Penal Code. Those changes partially reverse the changes introduced in 2023, under the previous government, which had been criticised by non-governmental organisations.

One change concerns the time limit for prisoners to file a complaint against a violation of their rights in prison (this time frame applies to complaints sent to a variety of authorities – e.g., the penitentiary court, the sentencing court, the prison director, etc.). The amendments would extend the time limit from seven to 14 days. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights has considered this proposal insufficient to improve the protection of prisoners’ rights, as late complaints could still be rejected regardless of the seriousness of the situation to which the complaint relates (including cases of torture). Thus, the amendments do not deviate from a formalistic rationale aimed at reducing the number of complaints. They also do not change another formal criterion, which is that complaints should be written in an appropriate manner (e.g. without using prison slang).

Another important change brought about by the amendments is that the requirement for prisoners to pay for the use of electrical equipment in their cells, such as radios and reading lamps, will be abolished. However, charges already incurred will continue to be collected, including from former inmates who have since left prison.

Finally, the amendment also reduces from 20 to 15 years the minimum period after which life prisoners may apply to be transferred from a closed regime to a semi-open regime.

A significant blind spot in the amendments is the fact that they allow medical services to be provided in the presence of at least two non-medical officers, i.e., prison staff (as opposed to only one under the current provisions), unless the medical staff request confidentiality. Both the current provision and the amendments fall short of CPT standards (which require medical examinations to take place out of the sight of prison officers in order to ensure the confidentiality necessary for the doctor-patient relationship) and appear to contradict a 2014 ruling of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal.

ROMANIA ■ In January 2025, an instruction from the National Prison Administration introduced the possibility for prisoners to submit complaints or requests to the prison administration through an IT system available in all the country’s prisons. The specific access modalities for this IT system are to be decided by the management of each prison. The instruction states that heads of sections must ensure each section is equipped with at least one functioning electronic device or system for submitting requests (Article 3(4)), and that the prison director must establish daily schedules enabling prisoners to submit requests at least once a working day (Article 3(5)). The prison director must also determine where integrated electronic devices or systems for submitting requests are made available (Article 3(6)). If these areas are located outside prison cells, they must be under video surveillance.

This system does not replace other methods of submitting complaints and requests, such as in writing or verbally. It only concerns requests or complaints relating to matters within the remit of the prison administration (e.g. granting an intimate visit), not issues that are to be dealt with by a judicial authority (e.g. material detention conditions).

Supporting documents are scanned and uploaded to the IT application by the head of the prison section. Applications should be resolved by the prison administration within 30 days. At the end of the procedure, the submitted documents are handed over to the applicant, who can send them to his relatives.

Special arrangements are made for persons who are unable to use the IT system on their own. Prisoners who are illiterate, blind or suffer from other disabilities that prevent them from using the IT system should have the application prepared by a fellow prisoner or a person designated by the head of the prison section. For foreign prisoners who do not speak or understand the Romanian language, the Prison Administration takes special measures to allow the submission of an application through a staff member with whom the foreigners can communicate.

The provisions of the Instruction do not affect the right of petition of persons deprived of their liberty, which is already guaranteed by law. Persons deprived of their liberty will continue to have the possibility to address themselves in writing to bodies other than the administration of the place of detention (judicial authorities, including the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty and other national or international courts, public institutions, national and international organisations, etc.).

SPAIN ■ In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice adopted an order increasing the scales used to remunerate legal aid defence lawyers and solicitors by 8%. The measure is retroactive and applies from 1 January 2025. This reform will only affect the territories under the jurisdiction of the Ministry: Extremadura, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Murcia, the Balearic Islands and Ceuta and Melilla. The other Autonomous Communities are not affected, as the powers relating to justice fall within the competence of the local governments.

The aim is to improve access to justice for those with fewer resources, such as prisoners, who can only afford the services of legal professionals through legal aid. The measure has been approved by the General Council of Spanish Lawyers, which also welcomed “the unblocking of a negotiation that has been blocked for six years”.

FRANCE ■  In March 2025, the Minister of Justice (formerly Minister of Interior), proposed enacting legislation to create a special strict detention regime for “the most dangerous” prisoners related to organised crime networks. This proposal comes after the highly publicised escape of a French prisoner, detained for drug trafficking offences, as well as reports saying that some drug-related prisoners continue to operate from within prison. The law was eventually adopted at the end of April 2025.

This new regime will be reserved for 600 to 700 prisoners (convicted or on remand) whom the authorities consider likely to pursue or establish links with organised crime networks. The authorities have not disclosed the criteria by which prisoners will be regarded as such.

Prisoners will be assigned to this regime for a renewable period of one year (the original bill foresaw a renewable period of two years). Prisoners under this regime will have restricted access to telephones and physical interactions with their visitors (they will not have access to “family life” units and their visits will take place with physical separation and through a hygiaphone). The Supreme Administrative Court, in an opinion delivered on request from the Government, specified that physical contact will be permitted for minors, or in the case of “exceptional family circumstances”.

The regime also provides for systematic full-body searches in the event of physical contact. The Supreme Administrative Court decided that the system of systematic full-body searches should be individualized to take account of the age or health of the person being searched.

The use of videoconferencing will also be increased for procedural acts concerning these prisoners, in order to avoid judicial extractions (the escape mentioned took place during an extraction to a court hearing).

For the time being, two prisons (Vendin-le-Vieil and Condé-sur-Sarthe, respectively in Pas-de-Calais and Orne departments) were designated to accommodate 200 prisoners under this regime. As a result, the prison administration emptied these two prisons and transferred the prisoners to other prisons in France. The transfer decisions were challenged before the administrative courts. If they are overturned, the implementation of this new detention regime could be jeopardised in the short term.

PORTUGAL | In January 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to introduce mobile phones and drone signal inhibitors in prisons. This measure is part of a wider plan to enhance security in prisons, triggered by an escape from Vale de Judeus in September 2024. According to the action plan, the signal inhibitor will first be implemented as a pilot project in this prison. The action plan also includes the extension of video surveillance, renovation work and an analysis of the causes of absenteeism among prison officers.

UKRAINE | In March 2025, the Deputy Minister of Justice announced the establishment of an internal security unit within the prison system. According to officials’ statements, this police unit will comprise 250 officers and will be responsible for ensuring staff safety, preventing offences, providing operational support for investigations, and responding to unlawful activities within the prison system (see also Ukraine’s statement before the UN CAT, 24 April 2025). This initiative consolidates and expands functions (“operational-search” functions) that were previously marginal into a fully developed system with a dedicated unit.

This tendency to “reinforce the law enforcement component” of the prison service raises concerns as the strict separation of police and prison functions is a core requirement of international standards (see in particular European Prison Rules, Rule 71). It would also constitute a step backwards, given that Ukraine’s accession to the Council of Europe in [date] had been conditional upon the transfer of prison administration from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. It should be noted that a 2016 law aimed at creating  a law enforcement body within the Ministry of Justice to investigate crimes committed in prison was declared unconstitutional by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 3-р/2018, 24 April 2018) and experts appointed by the Council of Europe deemed it incompatible with Council of Europe standards.

Such a reform would also increase the risk of ill-treatment, in a context were the use of torture is still widespread in Ukrainian prisons. The very origin of the provisions on which the new unit is based should be enough to oppose the initiative to turn them into a system. In 1992, the Ukrainian legislature maintained the “operational-search” powers of the penitentiary service, which had previously existed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. These powers were designed to combat crime within prison and, more broadly, “criminal influence”. These prerogatives were originally established by law during the time of the Gulag. Similar functions granted to the Russian penitentiary service are widely regarded as a key factor in the widespread use of torture in prisons in Russian prisons.

This move illustrates a shift towards a more security-focused approach in the Ukrainian prison reform process, as illustrated by the composition of the Advisory Expert Council for prison reform (see above “Prison Reform”).

GERMANY ■ InIn January 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) rejected a request to grant prison leave as an interim measure due to lengthy sentence adjustment proceedings (no. 2 BvQ 2/25f, 21 January 2025).

The case concerned a prisoner serving a 10-year sentence to be followed by preventive detention. He appealed to the sentence enforcement court against the decision of the prison administration to reject his request for prison leave. After an exchange of views (the sentence enforcement court asked the prison administration for observations, to which the applicant replied), nothing happened for 17 months. Following a complaint by the applicant, the court argued that a lack of resources was the cause of this delay and that his case was being prioritised. The court did not respond to a second similar complaint.

The FCC clearly stated that a decision was overdue and that it could not be justified by a lack of resources. However, the FCC rejected the application for interim measures because it was not possible to establish the applicant’s right to leave by way of interim measures. Especially since the applicant failed to provide sufficient information on the negative consequences of not being granted leave at this stage of his sentence.

POLAND ■ In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice launched a pilot project (“Cyfrowy re-start”) in Nowy Wiśnicz Prison (Lesser Poland Voivodeship) aimed at enabling long-term prisoners to acquire the digital skills and competences necessary for everyday life outside prison. The prisoners concerned are familiarised with the use of the internet, mobile phone applications, cashless payment systems and self-service machines, and informed about good practices for online safety.

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.