July-September 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 15 European Union Member States as well as Ukraine and Russia.

CONTENTS >> EDUCATION, HEALTH, MATERIAL DETENTION CONDITIONS, PENAL LAW, PRISONS IN WARTIME, PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, REGIME, SECURITY, SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT, TORTURE, VOTING RIGHTS, WOrK

ROMANIA ■ In September 2025, an order amending the Regulation on the organisation and implementation of educational, psychological assistance, and social assistance activities and programmes in prison (approved by Order of the Minister of Justice no. 1.322/C/2017) entered into force (Order No. 1925/C/2025).

The order specifically amended Article 86 (2) which had made a prison director’s approval of a prisoners’ access to university courses conditional on the “prisoner’s conduct”. In two subsequent judgments, the Cluj Court of Appeal (no. 79/21.02.2024) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (no. 1463/14.03.2025) ruled that this requirement unlawfully introduced an additional condition for inmates to enrol in or continue university studies, beyond what is provided by Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences (which also regulates aspects pertaining to access to education in prisons), thus restricting the right to education guaranteed by Article 32 of the Romanian Constitution. The High Court held that the ministerial order may regulate only the organisation and implementation of educational activities, not the conditions for exercising fundamental rights.

Accordingly, the reference to the prisoner’s conduct was deleted. Prison directors must therefore base their decision on criteria set out in law and recommendations contained in the individualised sentence plans.

BULGARIA ■ In July 2025, the Sliven Administrative Court held that it could not examine a request under the preventive remedy submitted by a prisoner complaining of the prison administration’s failure to provide her with necessary health care (no. 1388/14.07.2025 in administrative case no. 429/2025, 14 July 2025). The court found that the provision of medical care in prisons “does not have the character of an administrative action” and is therefore not subject to judicial review under the preventive remedy, but can only be overseen by the competent healthcare authorities. Conversely, in August 2025, the Burgas Administrative Court adopted the opposite approach and examined a claim for compensation in respect of the prison administration’s failure to ensure adequate medical treatment of a prisoner (no. 7194, 18 August 2025).

HUNGARY■ In July 2025, the Szeged Regional Court rejected a compensation request filed by a former prisoner, supported by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, who had been deprived of adequate care while in prison (19 June 2025). The judgment highlights significant protection gaps for prisoners requiring daily care.

The applicant suffered from multiple chronic health conditions: incontinence requiring the constant use of diapers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, a history of several strokes, paralysis on one side of the body and reliance on a wheelchair. The prison administration supplied him with only two diapers per day and failed to ensure access to the restroom designated for persons with disabilities, as that facility was routinely used by other inmates for smoking. As a result, the applicant was forced to manage urination, defecation, and subsequent personal hygiene in the presence of fellow inmates. In addition, prescribed medical examinations were carried out with more than a year’s delay, reportedly due to COVID-related restrictions.

Although the court acknowledged both the delays in medical examinations and the restricted access to appropriate sanitary facilities, it found that these shortcomings did not amount to a violation of the applicant’s rights. It held that the prison administration had taken all reasonably available measures to protect his rights, and that the humiliating conditions he endured did not exceed the degree of hardship inherently associated with the deprivation of liberty.

The applicant has lodged an appeal against this judgment.

ROMANIA ■ In August 2025, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health published for public consultation a draft joint order amending and supplementing their 2022 order on the provision of medical assistance, treatment, and care to prisoners (no. 4858/C/3363/2022). The reform’s main objective is to strengthen prisoners’ access to adequate medical care, including by addressing practical inconsistencies that have undermined the uniformity and clarity of medical procedures in places of detention.

The draft order clarifies the division of responsibilities between doctors and nurses, ensuring detainees receive proper triage, first aid, and emergency interventions in line with national health standards. It also updates transport protocols to guarantee safe medical transfer. Hygiene and sanitary requirements are reinforced through clearer obligations for medical staff and updated standards to be issued by the National Administration of Penitentiaries.

The reform further aims to ensure continuity of treatment, particularly for high-risk conditions such as diabetes, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, psychiatric disorders, and substance dependence. To protect detainees’ safety and prevent misuse or treatment failure, rules on medication dispensation are reorganised (small quantities are to be delivered under closer supervision, and the storage of unauthorised medicine is forbidden in medical offices). In the area of psychiatric care, the order also introduced dedicated psychotropic medicines kits in prison psychiatric cabinets.

SPAIN ■ In August 2025, constructions works began on a prison module at the University Hospital of Navarra. The aim of this module is to accommodate prisoners requiring hospitalisation, in line with the transfer of prison healthcare from the State to the Autonomous Community of Navarra that took place four years earlier, pursuant to Royal Decree 494/2021. Until now, the Autonomous Community of Navarra had no dedicated prison hospital unit, meaning that prisoners from Pamplona prison (the region’s only prison) who required hospitalisation were placed in shared rooms at the University Hospital of Navarra, where they remained under the custody of National Police officers, who also handled transfers between the prison and the hospital. The construction works are expected to be completed in autumn 2025.

BELGIUM ■ In August 2025, a law containing measures to curb overcrowding entered into force (Law of 18 July 2025 on measures to reduce prison overcrowding and introducing the principle that electronic monitoring cannot be carried out at the victim’s place of residence). The law contains three main sets of measures:

• Measures aiming at restricting the use of prison sentences and enforcing the principle of imprisonment as a last resort. For offences punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment, an alternative sanction (electronic monitoring, community service, autonomous probation sentence) must be imposed instead of a prison sentence if the relevant conditions are met. For sentences ranging from six months to three years, the judge must expressly justify any refusal to impose an alternative sanction.
• Measures to accelerate the procedure before the sentence implementation judge. For sentences between six months and three years, proceedings become written and expedited. If the prison director issues a favourable opinion, execution of the sentence may be suspended pending the judge’s decision.
• Measures to ease early release. The law introduces a temporary “prison overcrowding” early release mechanism, which allows the release of prisoners serving a sentence of less than 10 years up to six months before the end of their sentence. This measure will remain in force until 31 December 2026.

The NPM for prisons (Central Prison Monitoring Council, CCSP) has been highly critical of the measures adopted. It questioned the practical feasibility of implementing this law and called for a deeper reflection on the use of imprisonment leading to measures of a structural nature.

BULGARIA ■ In September 2025, a three-judge panel of the Silistra Administrative Court upheld a decision of the single-member Silistra Administrative Court refusing to award a prisoner compensation for having been held in an overcrowded cell in a pre-trial detention facility (not available online). The prisoner was granted compensation only for other aspects of his detention conditions – limited access to daylight and fresh air, lack of sanitary facilities, poor hygiene – in the modest amount of EUR 370.

As regards the prisoners’ personal space, the court calculated it on the basis of the cell’s overall surface area, which measured 8.1 sq.m. and accommodated the applicant with another prisoner. On that basis, the court concluded that both had a personal space of more than 4 sq.m. per prisoner, the statutory minimum under Bulgarian law. In doing so, they failed to take account of the presence of three bunk beds (providing six sleeping places), as well as a metal table and a metal chair. The two detainees spent 23 hours per day in the cell, leaving only or a one-hour outdoor exercise. Lastly, the court awarded the applicant only limited compensation for his legal costs.

ITALY ■ In July 2025, the Government presented its new “Prison Plan”, aimed at addressing prison overcrowding. The plan is organized around three areas of intervention:

Speading up early releases proceedings (liberazione anticipate) through amendments to the prison regulation (regolamento penitenziario). Further information on the measures to expedite those proceedings will be provided later in the process. The proposed amendments also include an increase of the number of monthly phone calls for prisoners (from four to six, or, for those convicted of offences referred to in Article 4-bis, paragraph 1, O.P., from two to four).

Increasing the overall capacity of the prison system by 10,000 additional places by 2027. This is to be achieved by creating new prison places and restoring the use of existing sections within prisons. The task has been entrusted to the Special Commissioner for Prison Construction (Commissario Straordinario per l’edilizia penitenziaria) appointed in September 2024.

Introducing new home detention measures for prisoners with a history of drug and alcohol use who are serving sentences of up to eight years (or four years for individuals convicted of offences referred to in article 4-bis, paragraph 1, O.P. – such as terrorist offences, mafia-type association or human trafficking). The Council of Ministers has approved a bill to this effect. Under the proposed framework, a dedicated Commission would assess a therapeutic programme, verify the individual’s current condition of addiction, and determine whether the addiction is connected to the offence. The measure may only be granted once and must be served in a “private facility” authorised to provide healthcare services based on a specific residential treatment and social rehabilitation program.

NETHERLANDS ■ In July 2025, the Ministry of Justice and Security adopted a ministerial decree amending the Regulation on Temporary Leave from Prison to introduce a temporary early-release procedure aimed at alleviating overcrowding (Staatscourant 2025, no. 24168, published on 15 July 2025).

Prisoners serving unconditional custodial sentences of 8 days to 1 year may be released one to 14 days before the end of their sentences, depending on capacity pressures. Certain categories are excluded, such as prisoners under a high security regime (prisoners held under the EBI (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting) regime, in wings accommodating prisoners sentenced to a terrorist offence, or in psychiatric or intensive supervision wards), detainees under the preventive detention regime, prisoners convicted of serious violent or sexual offences, prisoners with repeated disciplinary sanctions and imprisoned foreign nationals awaiting deportation. The measure will be in force from 15 July 2025 until 31 December 2026. The Dutch Prison Service is responsible for implementing the measure and may impose conditions or revoke leave.

The decree responds to a situation of severe overcrowding in Dutch prisons. While it provides immediate relief, it triggered serious criticism. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ), an independent public body advising the government on penal issues and reviewing complaints about prison administration decisions, stressed the importance of legal equality, transparent allocation criteria, and safeguards for vulnerable groups to support reintegration. The Council for the Judiciary warned that such executive measures could undermine the authority of judicial sentencing and disrupt the balance of powers.

This policy illustrates the acute pressure on the prison system and raises broader questions about the rule of law when emergency measures alter sentences for operational reasons.

PORTUGAL ■ In July, the Portuguese Association of Inmate Support (Associação Portuguesa de Apoio ao Recluso, APAR) threatened the Government with large-scale litigation before the European Court of Human Rights over degrading detention conditions resulting from the high number of prison guard strikes. Since 2023, 245 strike notices (mostly called by the National Prison Guard Union, the oldest and most representative in the sector) have been registered, 220 of which have been carried out.

Those strikes have affected various aspects of prisoners’ detention: for instance, the Minister of Justice recently acknowledged that due to staff shortage, inmates at the Alcoentre Prison (Azambuja) now have one hour less of recreation per day.

The Secretary General of APAR indicated that there is a group of lawyers ready to file 100 to 200 complaints a week, as a means to convince the Ministry of Justice to take urgent measures against strikes that have been going on for several months in prisons. According to APAR’s calculations, this would increase by EUR 20 or 30 million the amount that the Portuguese State may be obliged to pay in compensation to prisoners for poor detention conditions – in addition to the EUR 1,552,075 already paid between 2019 and 2025, according to the latest report from the National Preventive Mechanism.

FRANCE ■ In June 2025, the Constitutional Court censured Article 6 of Law no. 2025-568 of 23 June 2025, which would have allowed minors under the age of sixteen to be placed in pre-trial detention for up to one year for certain serious offences, including terrorism and organised crime (decision No. 2025-886 DC, 19 June 2025).

The Constitutional Court found that, by authorising a general extension of pre-trial detention to one year for minors under 16, this provision contravened a fundamental principle of juvenile justice, which guarantees a specific regime for minors characterised by the primacy of educational over punitive measures and by strict safeguards on deprivation of liberty. In doing so, the court confirmed its consistent case law, which accepts the need for tailored security measures but refuses to align the regime applicable to minors too closely with that of adults.

ent 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.

UKRAINE ■ On 29 July 2025, the Russian army dropped four guided high-explosive bombs on the territory of Bilenky Correctional Colony No. 99 in the Zaporizhzhia region, killing 16 prisoners and injuring around one hundred others, 44 of whom had to be hospitalised.

This attack underlines the extreme vulnerability of prisoners in wartime: they cannot flee, seek shelter or take protective measures during bombardments. The shelling of Bilenky Colony also coincided with the third anniversary of the shelling of the Olenivka prison, in which Russian forces killed at least 53 Ukrainian prisoners at the former Volnovakha correctional colony in the Donetsk region

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russian forces have struck penitentiary institutions at least 60 times in the Kharkiv, Donetsk, Mykolaiv and Kherson regions. Bilenky Colony, located 20 km from the frontline, and its surroundings have been hit 35 times. Despite this, no certified shelter meeting civil-defence standards was built in the colony, no full-scale training or evacuation-route rehearsals were conducted, and the facility was not evacuated.

Following the July attack, several other detention facilities in the Zaporizhzhia region began to be evacuated in August 2025, including Zaporizhzhia Pre-trial Detention Centre; Vilnianska Penitentiary Institution (No. 11); Kam’yanska Penal Colony (No. 101).

According to NGOs, if a minimum distance of 100 km from the frontline is considered necessary for a facility to be regarded as safe, then colonies in the Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy and Mykolaiv regions remain at risk. This affects around 5,000 prisoners, not counting those held in pre-trial detention (a list of institutions and their distance from the frontline is available here).

Civil society organisations have been raising the alarm since 2014 about the need to evacuate prisons close to the frontline or otherwise exposed to heightened danger. They have repeatedly called for revisions of strategic documents (e.g. the Strategy for Reforming the Penitentiary System and its operational implementation plan) to fully account for the risks posed by armed conflict to places of detention, including the establishment of an effective mechanism for relocating institutions from frontline territories to safer parts of the country.

Although Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 934  of 7 November 2018 provides for the evacuation of convicted persons and those in custody during martial law in areas close to hostilities, civil society notes that no comprehensive state policy on evacuation has been implemented in practice. The protection of prisoners’ lives during armed conflict is an obligation arising under domestic law (Article 27 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Executive Code (Articles 8, 10, 102), and Article 130 of the Civil Protection Code) as well as international law and standards, including the Geneva Convention (III) of 1949, the Mandela Rules, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Prison Rules.

Also in Ukraine, the authorities, in cooperation with Georgia and Moldova, organised the deportation back to Ukrainian territory of 65 civilians formerly imprisoned there who had been forcibly transferred to Russia after their prison fell under Russian occupation during the full-scale invasion, in breach of international humanitarian law (see full analysis in our joint submission with Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine, Russian Behind Bars, and Russland hinter Gittern).

This deportation took place in the context of an Article 39 request pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The case was brought in response to a humanitarian crisis that had developed from June 2025 at the Russia-Georgia border crossing of Larsi-Darieli, where civilians released by the Russian authorities attempted to return to Ukraine but were unable to cross the border due to the lack of valid travel documents and travel restrictions imposed by Moldova and Georgia. As a result, dozens of individuals were held for prolonged periods in a basement at the border crossing in inhuman conditions (insufficient fresh air and food, lack of toilets and showers, and the absence of medical care) and entirely dependent on humanitarian assistance provided by civil society organisations. At the time of writing, 25 civilians remained stranded at the border.

Upon their return to Ukraine, 40 of the deported former prisoners were immediately mobilised into the armed forces, four were detained to serve the remainder of their sentences, and 11 were released as they did not meet the mobilisation criteria. The obstacles faced by former Ukrainian prisoners in returning to their country, together with the treatment they encountered upon arrival, point to a failure to acknowledge their status as victims of a war crime and expose them to secondary victimisation.

It is estimated that approximately 1,800 convicted Ukrainian prisoners were deported in November 2022 from Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts of Ukraine to occupied Crimea and Russia. The forcible transfer of civilians, including prisoners, constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law and has been found to breach the European Convention of Human Rights (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22, 9 July 2025). The difficulties faced by forcibly deported former Ukrainian prisoners in returning to Ukraine have been documented since at least since 2023.

NETHERLANDS ■ In July 2025, Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) Appeals Committee, the body responsible for reviewing prisoners’ complaints, overturned a prison director’s decision to refuse an unsupervised family visit (BZT) to a prisoner on the basis of “undesirable behaviour”. In his decision, the director had not explained how the alleged behaviour conflicted with the eligibility criteria for BZT, and had referred to a six-week evaluation period before such visits could be granted (decision 24/41653/GA, 31 July 2025).

The RSJ found that this reasoning was vague and not based on clear criteria, and was therefore unreasonable and unfair. As the prisoner had since been transferred, restoring the visit was no longer possible, and the RSJ awarded EUR 30 in compensation.

This decision strengthens procedural safeguards for visitation rights by requiring transparent and individualised reasoning when denying BZT. It also clarifies the scope of admissible complaints, thereby reinforcing prisoners’ access to justice.

Also, in the Netherlands, in July 2025, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) Appeals Committee annulled a Ministry of Justice decision to place a prisoner in a facility far from his place of residence, (decision 25/49507/GB, 9 July 2025). The prisoner argued that the distance would undermine his ability to maintain family contact and meet personal obligations.

The RSJ held that the Ministry’s decision lacked adequate reasoning under Article 25 of the Dutch Regulation on the Selection and Placement of Prisoners. Capacity shortages alone could not justify disregarding placement principles, which require keeping prisoners as close as possible to their social network. As the Ministry had not explained why nearer facilities were unavailable, the RSJ declared the appeal well-founded.

The ruling underscores that even under capacity pressures, placement decisions must comply with legal criteria and be properly reasoned. It strengthens procedural safeguards for maintaining family ties and limits arbitrary transfers.

Lastly, in the Netherlands, in August 2025, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) Appeals Committee ruled that the decision to cancel a prisoners’ visit due to a lack of interpreter breached Article 38 of the Dutch Penitentiary Act, which regulate prison visits and guarantees every prisoner at least one hour of visit per week (decision 25/50221/SGA, 7 August 2025). The prison explored alternatives (such as arranging another interpreter or rescheduling the visit) but none could be implemented, and a recorded version of the visit was also excluded for security reasons. The case was eventually closed after the applicant was offered two compensatory visits. However, the decision confirms that logistical problems, such as interpreter shortages, cannot constitute a valid ground to override visitation rights.

PORTUGAL ■ As of July 2025, more than 9,000 fixed telephones had been installed inside prison cells. Prisoners can make phone one-hour calls between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. to pre‑authorised numbers, as well as to public-interest contacts such as the Ombudsperson’s office.

The phones also function as “panic buttons”, reducing reliance on the previous bell system used to summon prison guards. Each call records the exact time the button was activated, providing the prisoner with a verified record of when help was requested and when it was provided.

AUSTRIA ■ In a judgment published in July 2025, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Austrian Penal Code, which, in practice, prevented prisoners from being granted legal aid in proceedings concerning applications for prison privileges (G 133/2024-31, 25 June 2025).

The case concerned a prisoner held in a forensic treatment centre who applied for specific sentence-related privileges (e.g. detention without locking the living quarters or the gates during the day) to the prison director, who is the first instance competent authority. The prison director denied granting the requested privileges. The applicant’s ensuing appeal and request to be granted legal aid were rejected as well by the competent authorities. The applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.

In the case at hand, which concerned prison privileges, only the specific courts mentioned in Section 16(3) of the Austrian Penal Code are competent. However, Section 17(2)(1) of the Penal Code provides that the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) applies to proceedings before these courts listed in Section 16(3). The AVG, in turn, does not generally allow for the granting of legal aid. As a result, legal aid is excluded from proceedings under Section 16(3), even when these proceedings concern fundamental rights such as access to prison privileges.

The Constitutional Court found Section 17(2)(1) of the Penal Code unconstitutional, as it effectively prevented prisoners from obtaining legal aid in proceedings under Section 16(3). Moreover, the Constitutional Court noted that prisoners may be granted legal aid in annual proceedings reviewing the necessity of preventive detention, which are governed by a different provision (Section 16(2) of the Penal Code). It found that the distinction between proceedings under Section 16(2), where legal aid may be granted, and those under Section 16(3), where it is not available, violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 7 of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) and Article 2 of the Constitutional Law (StGG).

Consequently, Section 17(2)(1) of the Penal Code is to be repealed as unconstitutional. The repeal will enter into force on 1 July 2026, thereby expanding prisoners’ access to legal aid in proceedings concerning prison privileges.

BELGIUM ■ In July 2025, a preliminary question was referred to the Constitutional Court, asking it to resolve the disagreement as to whether the scope of prisoners’ right to complain is limited to the legality of the decision complained of or can extend to the implementation of the decision.

The referral to the Constitutional Court is the result of recent contradictory case law issued by the French-speaking Appeals Commission and the Supreme Administrative Court.

The French-speaking Appeals Commission repeatedly stressed that the modalities of implementation of decisions (for example, how a body search or disciplinary sanction is carried out) must be challengeable before the Complaints Commission. It argued that separating the legality of a decision from the legality of its implementation would contradict the spirit of the law and would empty the right to complain of its substance by allowing lawful decisions to be executed arbitrarily, without any possible remedy.

Conversely, the Council of State adopted the opposite position in a case concerning a body search, holding that the material execution of a decision does not constitute an individual administrative act subject to appeal. Under this restrictive interpretation, only the formal decision by the prison director may be contested, not the way it is implemented by staff.

In this context, the Dutch-speaking Appeals Commission referred a preliminary question to the Constitutional Court on 17 July 2025, regarding the compatibility of a restrictive interpretation of Article 148 of the Prison Principles Act, establishing a right to challenge decisions taken by prison directors, with Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before the law and protection against discrimination. The preliminary question pointed in particular to a difference in situation between two categories of detainees: those who can challenge the decision itself and those who can only challenge its implementation. According to the Commission, this distinction deprives the latter of equivalent legal protection, even though the need for a swift, simple, and accessible remedy is identical. At the time of publication, the Constitutional Court had not yet delivered its ruling. The forthcoming decision could redefine the balance between institutional security and judicial protection for detainees, determining whether the effectiveness of the right to complain requires inclusion of implementation acts within its scope.

BULGARIA ■ In July 2025, the Burgas Administrative Court, sitting as a cassation court, upheld a lower-court decision quashing an order imposing disciplinary isolation on an English-speaking prisoner. Among other procedural irregularities, the court held that he had not been provided with an interpreter during the disciplinary hearing (no. 6632 in administrative case no. 1033/2025), 23 July 2025.

The prisoner had some knowledge of Bulgarian and was able to communicate with the prison administration in that language. However, the court noted that the disciplinary hearing involved “specific terminology and the possibility that the person could not understand everything in full is real”, and therefore found that the prison authorities should have granted his request for an interpreter. The court further held that the prison authorities had not provided sufficient reasons to impose the most severe disciplinary sanction — 14 days’ isolation.

HUNGARY ■ By September 2025, almost half of the country’s prisons had published their House Rules online, improving access for prisoners and their relatives to key regulations that govern daily life, visits, and communication within the prison system. This development results from a campaign led by FECSKE – Support Network for Detainees and Their Families, a coalition of formerly incarcerated persons, relatives of detainees, civil activists, correctional professionals and researchers.

The House Rules constitute a core normative framework governing the daily life of persons deprived of liberty, and their accessibility is essential to ensuring legal certainty and predictability. They set out, among other matters, detainees’ daily schedule, the items they may keep in their possession, the detailed procedures for receiving parcels from relatives, and the conditions and requirements for visits.

As the regulations of each prison are not standardised, even minor differences – for example whether possession of a particular personal item is allowed – may have significant consequences for prisoners. Breaches of the House Rules can lead to disciplinary proceedings, making accurate and up-to-date knowledge indispensable not only for detainees but also for their relatives who visit, maintain contact, or send parcels.

Previously, most of these documents were not publicly accessible, hindering the ability of families and legal representatives to navigate frequently changing institutional regulations.

A survey conducted by FECSKE among relatives of detainees revealed that the most common concerns were the lack of clear information and the inconsistencies between the House Rules of each prison. Alongside its media outreach, FECSKE also shared these findings with the National Prison Headquarters (BVOP). As a result, 12 out of 30 penitentiary institutions have already published their House Rules online – a practical improvement for affected families and an important step forward for legal certainty and institutional transparency..

NETHERLANDS ■ In September 2025, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) found that the prison administration had violated a prisoners’ right to complaint by making the submission of complaints contingent on an interview with prison staff and by refusing complaints written in a foreign language other than English (decision 25/47579/GA, 9 September 2025).

The applicant had submitted 11 complaints to the prison director, most of them in Chinese. The director declared them inadmissible because they were not in Dutch or in English and because the prisoner had not first discussed them with prison staff.

The RSJ ruled that the right to complain under Article 60 of the Penitentiary Act is an unconditional right that may not be restricted by internal conditions or mandatory discussions. According to Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Penitentiary Act, a detainee who does not have sufficient command of Dutch may submit a complaint in another language. The administration may provide support, but may not use language as a restriction.

This decision clarifies that internal rules may never outweigh the legal right to complain and emphasizes that institutions must take reasonable measures to ensure that all detainees have effective access to remedies, regardless of language barriers.

Also in the Netherlands, In September 2025, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) handed down an important decision regarding prisoners’ contact with their lawyer (RSJ 23/37813/GA, 8 September 2025).

The case concerned a prisoner who complained that his lawyer had not been allowed to hand him a letter during an official visit, and that incoming correspondence from his lawyer had been returned without explanation.

The RSJ found that both interferences violated the detainee’s right to confidential communication and were therefore contrary to the Penitentiary Principles Act (Pbw).

The RSJ stressed that internal rules regarding visiting hours cannot serve as a basis to restrict the transfer of confidential legal correspondence. If a lawyer wishes to hand over privileged mail to their client, restrictions are permissible only on specific legal grounds.

The RSJ further held that returning a letter from a lawyer breached Article 36 PBw. Prison authorities have no discretionary power in handling legal correspondence: it may be withheld or returned only in narrowly defined circumstances provided by law (none of which applied in the case at hand), and not for any other reasons based on internal procedures or logistical constraints. Moreover, returning privileged mail without an accompanying explanation is unlawful in itself and impairs the detainee’s legal protection as he cannot determine whether he should lodge a complaint.

LITHUANIA ■ In July 2025, the prison administration adopted internal regulations governing “Safe environment Units” (SANS) designed for prisoners who are at risk of repeated or constant physical or psychological violence (see our report covering April-June 2025).

The regulations set out the requirements for establishing and operating the SANS, as well as the restrictions and rules of conduct applicable to prisoners accommodated there and the consequences of non-compliance.

The SANS unit may accommodate up to 12 people and must be organised in a way that ensures their separation from the rest of the prison population. All meaningful activities are to be provided within the Unit, and where activities take place outside the Unit, they may be organised only under the supervision of a prison officer.

Prisoners may be taken outside the Unit only to receive health care services, to receive visitors,  meet their lawyer, or in other necessary cases. In all instances, prisoners must be accompanied by at least one prison officer. The regulations also set out the conduct rules applicable to prisoners held in the Unit, including requirements not to consume alcohol, illicit drugs or medication not prescribed by a doctor; not to engage in physical or psychological violence; and not to participate in informal prisoner hierarchies or use the language used in the prison subculture.

NETHERLANDS ■ In August 2025, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) suspended a prison administration decision to downgrade a prisoner to the basic regime due to “undesirable behaviour” (decision 25/50094/SGA, 4 August 2025).

The prison director argued that the prisoner failed to participate in reintegration activities, such as treatment or risk assessments. The RSJ held that this reasoning was insufficiently concrete: it referred only to general non-cooperation and did not identify specific behaviour, explain how this hindered reintegration goals, or indicate how the prisoner could adjust his conduct.

The RSJ concluded that the decision lacked a clear balancing of interests and therefore appeared “unreasonable or unfair” within the meaning of Articles 60 and 66 of the Penitentiary Principles Act. The downgrade to the basic regime was temporarily suspended pending full review.

This decision is significant as it reinforces the obligation on prison directors to provide detailed, individualised justification for regime changes. Generic references to non-compliance are not sufficient when fundamental aspects of prison life (such as access to activities, privileges, and resocialisation opportunities) are at stake.

RUSSIA ■ In July 2025, amendments to a series of laws (including the Code on the Execution of Sentences and the Pre-Trial Detention Act) allow the Federal Security Service (FSB) to create and operate its own pre-trial detention centres (SIZOs) for the first time since 2006 (Federal Law No. 239-FZ, 23 July 2025). The law will enter into force on 1 January 2026.

Under the new framework, the FSB is authorised to establish SIZOs for holding suspects and accused persons in criminal cases. The service will assume full responsibility for guarding detainees, escorting and transporting them to investigative actions and court hearings, and enforcing sentences for prisoners assigned to FSB-run SIZOs to perform maintenance work.

The FSB, jointly with the FSIN, will set binding rules governing conditions of detention, internal regime, disciplinary measures, receiving and dispatching letters and parcels by detainees, escorting procedures, medical aid, rehabilitation programmes, and detainees’ participation in investigative and judicial proceedings. Transfers of prisoners between prison facilities under the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) and those run by the FSB will take place under a joint regulatory act issued by FSIN and the FSB.

According to the legislative materials and press reports, the new SIZOs governed by the FSB are intended primarily for individuals accused of state security-related offences – including treason, espionage, confidential cooperation with foreign actors, terrorism and extremism – officially justified as “additional measures to protect state secrets” in the context of the war in Ukraine.

The law also returns to the FSB a number of high-profile SIZOs of “central subordination” that had been transferred to the Ministry of Justice in 2006. Media reports identify at least seven facilities expected to revert to FSB control, including Moscow’s Matrosskaya Tishina (SIZO-1) and Lefortovo (SIZO-2), as well as detention centres in Saint Petersburg, Rostov-on-Don, Krasnodar, Vladikavkaz and Chelyabinsk.

The explanatory note to the law argues that the 2005–2006 reforms that placed prison institutions under the authority of the Ministry of Justice – undertaken to align Russia with Council of Europe standards – were introduced “at the suggestion of Western partners” and allegedly failed to enhance national security. Legislators claim that returning state-security detainees to FSB authority will improve investigations and prevent contact with detainees accused of other crimes.

The law makes extensive amendments to related legislation. Until the FSB adopts new regulations consistent with the amended legal framework, existing rules governing SIZO operations will apply insofar as they do not conflict with the new provisions.

Another law, adopted in parallel (Federal Law No. 323-FZ) authorises the FSB, in particular, to impose, for up to 30 days, the period of “special conditions” in specific facilities (introducing severe restrictions on the regime, including prisoners‘ ability to communicate with the outside world) – a function previously exercised by the FSIN – with possible extension for an additional 30 days upon approval by the prosecutor’s office.

Also in Russia, in July 2025, Russia adopted amendments that significantly expands the operational, coercive, and regulatory powers of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN, Federal Law No. 323-FZ). The amendments will enter into force on 28 January 2026.

They strengthen FSIN’s autonomy over material and technical aspects of prison facilities’ management, giving the service authority to set the standards and procedures for supplying equipment, weapons, ammunition and “special means”, as well as the rules for their storage, movement, repair and disposal. The law also confirms that FSIN personnel will be equipped with weapons and protective gear according to standards defined internally by the agency.

The law also broadens the agency’s authority in search and arrest operations related to escaped prisoners or individuals evading punishment. FSIN officers may conduct identity checks and vehicle searches in areas where escaped convicts may appear and gain new grounds to use physical force, special means and firearms in such operations. A new provision allows the use of physical force to detain convicted persons who actively resist or pose a risk to themselves or others.

Several amendments reinforce FSIN’s central role in supervision and preventive monitoring. Pre-trial detention centres and correctional facilities must maintain “preventive registers” of detainees and convicted persons, with procedures established by the Ministry of Justice.

The law also extends FSIN’s role in coordination with law enforcement, requiring interaction with the police to prevent offences by individuals under FSIN supervision, including those serving sentences of compulsory labour.

A number of amendments concern the regulation of censorship and surveillance of prisoners. FSIN, together with the Federal Security Service, will set new rules for the censorship of prisoner correspondence and the surveillance of detainees in pre-trial detention facilities (SIZOs). Similar joint authority applies to the provision and organisation of psychological assistance in both detention centres and correctional institutions.

ITALY ■ In August 2025, the Sentence Supervisory Court (Tribunale di Sorveglianza) of Turin granted home detention to a prisoner with health conditions, even though his state of health was not formally considered incompatible with detention. The court based its decision on a broad interpretation of the relevant legal provision on home detention (art. 47-ter par. 1 lett. c) O.P.), which allows individuals serving a sentence of up to four years to serve it at home or in another private residence when their health condition is particularly serious and requires ongoing contact with local healthcare facilities.

In the present case, the Sentence Supervisory Judge (Magistrato di Sorveglianza) had rejected the applicant’s request to serve his sentence at home for health reasons, finding that his condition was not severe enough to justify a finding of incompatibility with detention. A medical report had indeed concluded that the applicant’s illnesses did not require constant contact with the local healthcare facilities.

While agreeing with the judge that there was no “strict” incompatibility with detention, the court nevertheless considered it appropriate to grant the inmate’s application in light of the current prison overcrowding and the resource shortages. The court stated that “the current situation of overcrowding in prison facilities requires careful consideration when assessing the need to prolong the detention of individuals suffering from serious illnesses (even when they are adequately monitored and not in a phase of immediate deterioration)”. It added that “the detention of a person affected by serious pathologies requires, in order to guarantee appropriate assistance, an extraordinary commitment of resources, including [prison staff for medical escorts to external healthcare facilities] – resources that are currently objectively insufficient and can only be made available by diverting them from other tasks.”

The Public Prosecutor general fully endorsed the court’s reasoning, noting that every judge, when making a decision, is required to balance competing needs, while taking into account the “territorial reality and the historical moment in which he or she operates.”

Also in Italy, in July 2025, a decree of the Ministry of Justice has introduced a procedure allowing prisoners without suitable accommodation to benefit from sentence adjustment measures, by being attached to dedicated reintegration residences (decree of the Ministry of Justice no. 128 of 24 July 2025, implementing Article 8, paragraph 2, of D.L. n. 92 of July 4, 2024).The decree entered into force on 30 September 2025.

The decree establishes a register of residential facilities for the reintegration of inmates, which is to be published on the official website of the Ministry of Justice. These facilities must be suitable for housing and comply with health and hygiene standards. They must provide adequate accommodation and personal care, as well as implement social and work reintegration programmes. The administration covers the cost of residence for a maximum of eight months.

Access to these facilities is limited to inmates who:

• are eligible for alternative measures;
• lack access to suitable housing;
• have an annual income below a specified threshold;
• are not subject to an expulsion order from the country.

In addition, the prison treatment unit, in charge of providing an evaluation of the prisoner concerned, must assess several factors, including the absence of disciplinary sanctions beyond warnings, the absence of aggressive incidents, the prisoner’s work skills and participation in rehabilitation programmes, as well as “any other factor that may reasonably support the achievement of the objective of finding employment and independent housing, within the maximum period of residence funded by the administration”.

To access these facilities, prisoners must submit a request to the prison director, together with their application for an alternative measure addressed to the Sentence Supervisory Judge.
After reviewing the report prepared by the prison’s treatment unit, the prison director forwards the request to the competent Office for the Execution of Penal Sentences (Ufficio interdistrettuale di esecuzione penale esterna), which, after verifying availability of a place in a residence, issues a certificate and transmits it to the Sentence Supervisory Judge. The certificate is valid for two months, after which it expires.

LITHUANIA ■ In August 2025, the Constitutional Court accepted for consideration an individual complaint challenging Article 83(3) of the Penal Code, which excludes from eligibility for conditional release persons convicted of crimes against the sexual freedom and/or inviolability of minors.

The applicant, who is serving a sentence for such crimes, submitted his complaint after the prison administration rejected his request for conditional release – a decision later confirmed by both the court of first instance and the court of appeal.

He argues that the contested provision deprives prisoners of the possibility of conditional release solely on the basis of the category of crime committed, without consideration of individual factors. According to the applicant, this violates Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and imposes an obligation on the authorities to make individualised decisions.

For the same reason, the applicant further contends that the provision breaches Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination, as it subjects all prisoners convicted of the same category of offence to identical restrictions regardless of their individual profiles.

Consequently, the applicant argues that the challenged provision prevents courts from fulfilling their constitutional role in the administration of justice under Article 109, as they are compelled to make automatic decisions without assessing the circumstances of each case.

RUSSIA ■ On 29 September 2025, the Russian Federation adopted a legislative act formally withdrawing from the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT), ending more than two decades its participation in one of Europe’s core preventive human rights mechanisms. Russia notified the Council of Europe of its decision on 30 October 2025.

The ECPT is an open convention, which means that the Russian Federation continued to be bound by its provisions even after its expulsion from the Council of Europe in March 2022, following the invasion of Ukraine. In the ensuing public statement, the CPT emphasised that it had sought to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Russian authorities to enable the Committee to resume its monitoring visits to places of deprivation of liberty in Russia. The Committee also has requested the Russian authorities to provide information on certain events, such as the sudden death of Mr Alexei Navalny while in detention. The lack of response from Russian authorities and the absence of action enabling the CPT to carry out monitoring visits was characterised by the CPT as a failure to cooperate. Russia had also opposed the publication of the majority of the CPT visit reports (only 4 reports out of 27 were published).

Civil society organisations and human rights defenders note that the withdrawal comes amid a sharp deterioration of detention conditions, spiralling levels of torture and ill-treatment, and a near-total dismantling of domestic monitoring mechanisms. Russia’s withdrawal marks a significant contraction of international oversight at a time of unprecedented risks for detainees across the country, including civilians transferred from occupied Ukrainian territories and Russian prisoners whose situation remains increasingly opaque and precarious.

FRANCE ■ In July 2025, the Constitutional Court upheld a new law that abolished postal voting for prisoners in local and legislative elections, enabling its entry into force (no. 2025-889 DC, 17 July 2025, on law no. 2025-658, dated 18 July 2025). The law abolishes postal voting for prisoners in legislative and local elections (municipal, departmental and regional), while retaining it for elections held in a single national constituency, such as presidential, European and referendum votes.

Since 2019, prisoners had been permitted to vote by post, a measure introduced to improve their access to voting. According to data from the Ministry of Justice and the prison administration, turnout among detainees significantly increased under this system — rising from 2% in the 2017 presidential election to 20% in 2022, with similar rates in the 2024 European elections (22.42%) and legislative elections (21.76% in the first round and 19.32% in the second).

The initial version of the bill proposed stricter conditions, removing the possibility for prisoners to register in the municipality of the prison or its departmental capital. Registration would have been limited to the prisoner’s pre-incarceration address or that of a close family member. The Senate later amended the text, introducing a dual system:

• For national elections (presidential, European and referendums), postal voting remains possible. Detainees can register in the municipality where the prison is located.
• For territorial elections (legislative and local), however, postal voting is abolished. Prisoners must instead vote by proxy or be granted temporary release.

Additionally, the law extends the list of municipalities in which detainees can register to vote. Previously, they could only register in the municipality where they were born, where they last resided, or where an ascendant (parent or grandparent) was domiciled. Now, they can also choose a municipality in which a descendant (such as a child, grandchild, or great-grandchild) is registered.

Although the Constitutional Court ruled that the law was constitutional, it did so by focusing on the theoretical availability of alternative voting mechanisms, such as proxy voting and temporary release, without addressing the practical difficulties many detainees face in accessing these options. Consequently, the decision has been criticized for overlooking the effective disenfranchisement that has resulted from the removal of postal voting in local and legislative elections.

PORTUGAL ■ In July 2025, the Ombudsperson presented her annual report in which she highlighted major shortcomings in working conditions in prison. First, she underlined that it’s not by choice that many inmates remain almost without occupation on a daily basis, and that the system suffers from an inadequate regulatory framework and insufficient job opportunities relative to the prison population. Furthermore, the amounts paid to prisoners by the prison administration have not been updated for over 20 years (for instance, a cook earns EUR 3.10 per day, a barber EUR 2.70, and a library technician EUR 2.20). The Ombudsperson warned that such wages “undermine the educational and socially rehabilitative value of prison work”.

The report also identified as recurring issues overcrowding, lack of resources and personnel, deteriorated infrastructure, deficiencies in clinical care, and the absence of adequate measures for an aging and diversified prison population. It further pointed to the lack of medical staff and the absence of sufficient means to ensure adequate access to videoconferencing, particularly for foreign nationals and inmates held far from home.

ROMANIA ■ In August 2025, the National Prison Administration issued an order revising and supplementing the instructions governing the organisation of work for prisoners (Order No. 267 of 8 August 2025 of the National Prison Administration, published in the Official Gazette No. 775 of 20 August 2025). The revision was prompted by several years of practical experience, institutional feedback, and changes in legislation, which exposed significant limitations in the previous rules.

Most notably, the order allows for a more flexible approach to assigning prisoners to work. Several former prohibitions that automatically excluded certain categories prisoners from work activities without individual assessment have been removed (this concerned for example under disciplinary sanctions or investigation, those involved in pending criminal cases, prisoners in high-security regimes, and certain medical or psychiatric cases). Instead, these elements are now considered by the work selection committee, allowing for more individualised decisions of the work selection committee.

Administrative procedures are likewise streamlined. Documentation for the work selection committee must now be circulated at least twenty-four hours before meetings, reflecting the rapidly changing availability of inmates – due for example to transfers, medical situations, disciplinary measures. Contractual relations with external partners are clarified and made more adaptable, including the possibility of negotiating advance payments. 

Also in Romania, a second order, adopted a few days earlier, increased the number of credits prisoners can earn for each day of work under the credit system used to reward detainees for work, education and rehabilitation activities (Order no. 266 of 6 August 2025). Accumulated credits allow prisoners to access various rewards, for example additional visits, increased communication rights, extra parcels, access to recreational or cultural activities, temporary leave, and most importantly sentence reductions.

Previously, prisoners could earn only three credits per day of work, a low amount that made it difficult to accumulate enough credits for meaningful rewards such as temporary leave. Simulations showed that even inmates working full-time struggled to meet the minimum thresholds, especially as work schedules limited access to educational and psychosocial activities that also generated credits.

The new rules raise the allocation to 5 credits per workday, restoring the balance with educational credits (which were increased in 2020) and making rewards realistically attainable.

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.