This compilation gathers the most important judgments and decisions on prison issues handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By reporting on the main trends in European prison case law, it aims to support legal practitioners in the prison field in their research and litigation, as well as to identify blind spots in the European case law to build strategic litigation avenues.
CONTENTs >> APRIL 2025 / MAY 2025 / JUNE 2025
APRIL 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
MORABITO v. ITALY ■ Application no. 4953/22
Extension of a prisoners’ special restrictive prison regime (section 41 bis) despite his long incarceration, advanced aged and cognitive decline (Alzheimer’s disease and vascular neurocognitive disorder), which cast doubt on his ability to maintain meaningful contact with a criminal organisation; extension of this special prison regime insufficiently justified; failure of domestic authorities to address the allegation that limited interactions entailed by the special prison regime could be detrimental for the applicant’s mental state: violation of Article 3 (partly dissenting opinion of Judge Balsamo).
Prisoner with multiple diseases (cognitive decline, prostate enlargement, bilateral inguinal hernia, hypertensive heart disease with episodes of angina, and polyarthritis) maintained in detention; adequate care provided: no violation of Article 3.
IVAN KARPENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2) ■ Application no. 41036/16
Unrepresented prisoner denied participation via videolink in oral hearings in administrative proceedings concerning the monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration; domestic courts relied on the alleged absence of relevant legislative provisions rather than assessing whether the nature of the case required the applicant’s presence: violation of Article 6§1 (civil).
Unlawful monitoring of prisoner’s correspondence with domestic courts: violation of Article 8.
TERGEK v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 39631/20
Refusal by the prison authorities to deliver internet printouts posted to a prisoner by his wife; blanket ban on prisoners receiving any printouts or photocopied documents, based solely on their format, regardless of their content, origin or source: no violation of Article 10 (dissenting opinion of Judges Bårdsen, Seibert-Fohr and Lavapuro).
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Romania | Refusal to allow prisoners to attend the funerals of close family members (Vidrean and Caloian v. Romania, nos. 39525/22 and 9286/23, 30 April 2025): violation of Article 8.
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
ALCHASTER II [GC] ■ Case C‑743/24 (Request for a preliminary ruling, Ireland)
The concept of “heavier penalty” contained in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not cover a situation where a parole regime has been made stricter (from a right to automatic entitlement to release on licence once the first half of an imposed sentence has been served, to a right to release once at least two thirds of an imposed sentence has been served, dependent on an assessment conducted by Parole Commissioners).
MAY 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
MAGLEVANNAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 13002/10 and 9 others
Journalist ordered to pay a significant sum and publish a retraction in defamation proceedings initiated after she had documented ill-treatment in prison; ill-treatment in prison considered an issue of general interest: violation of Article 10.
KALKAN v. DENMARK ■ Application no. 51781/22
Death of the applicant’s son in prison after being restrained in a prone position leg lock for approximately thirteen minutes; failure of the authorities to provide adequate instructions and training to prison staff on the use of the prone position, despite updated knowledge of the increased risks associated with it; involved prison officers lacked the high level of competence required in dealing with a risk-to-life situation: violation of Article 2 (substantive).
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Prisoners held in uninterrupted solitary confinement for extended periods (over two years for two applicants); health condition of one of the applicants (arthritis, prostatitis and astheno-neurotic syndrome) exacerbated by solitary confinement; further restrictions (limited access to outdoor exercise and limitations on family visits and on receiving any parcels from outside); poor material conditions of detention (Mirzayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 38339/21 and 1287/22, 15 May 2025): violation of Article 3.
Russia | Inadequate conditions of detention during prisoners’ transport – overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilets, lack of fresh air, constant electric light (Bikbulatov v. Russia, no. 5279/19, 15 May 2025): violation of Article 3.
Ukraine | Prisoners with health conditions (e.g., thyroid cancer, heart condition, trophic ulcer of the right shin, hepatitis C, cirrhosis, chronic ischemic heart disease) not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention (Dzhachvliani and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 37516/23 and 2 others, 15 May 2025): violation of Article 3.
JUNE 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
UYGUN v. TÜRKIYE ■ Application no. 9389/19
Refusal of domestic authorities to dispatch a 10-page letter sent by a prisoner to his fiancée based on an interpretation of a single paragraph as evidence of his ongoing involvement in a terrorist organization he was charged with being a member of; written correspondence as only means of communication between the applicant and his fiancée; authorities failed to consider whether the letter could have been sent after redacting the contested paragraph; impugned measure not strictly required by special circumstances of the state of emergency in place after the 2016 coup attempt: violation of Article 8.
ÖZDEMİR v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 38351/20
Refusal of the prison authorities to deliver a letter addressed to a prisoner by his wife; failure to provide sufficient explanation as to why the interception of the letter was necessary to achieve the aim of prevention of disorder or crime: violation of Article 8.
KACIR AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 9587/19 and 36 others
Prisoners held in cells with less than 3 sq. m of personal space for extended periods: violation of Article 3.
Prisoners held in cells with a personal space between 3 sq. m and 4 sq. m; cumulative impact of detention conditions (inadequate ventilation, insufficient sanitary facilities and hygiene, passive smoking) not reaching the severity threshold: non violation of Article 3.
Prisoner detained in a prison located more than 600 km from his family’s place of residence; authorities’ refusal to transfer him closer to his family based on prison overcrowding; no consideration of alternative measures to alleviate the grievance: violation of Article 8.
Restriction of prisoners’ visiting rights with their children solely based on prison’s capacity: violation of Article 8.
Recording and storage of private correspondence on a national judicial computer system; measure based on unpublished regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.
GALYTSKYY v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 9151/17
Prisoner subjected to violence by prison staff, resulting in a lifelong disability; major shortcomings in the investigation (investigation opened five years after the events, prosecution’s refusal to grant the applicant victim status); Government’s allegation that the applicant may have sustained this hip injury prior to his detention analysed as an attempt to reverse the burden of proof: violation of Article 3 (substantive and procedural).
BENYUKH v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 39150/20
Prisoner with adentia not provided with free dentures despite eligibility, due to legislative, administrative and financial obstacles; provision of dentures initiated not by the authorities but through the proactive intervention of an NGO; 19-month delay between diagnosis of adentia and completion of the denture fitting process: violation of Article 3.
Lack of effective remedy: violation of Article 13.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Routine handcuffing of a prisoner under strict imprisonment regime (Khubiyev v. Russia, no. 11687/21, 12 June 2025): violation of Article 3.
Poland | Full searches systematically imposed on a prisoner under the “dangerous detainee” regime, whenever he left or entered his cell, during a period of 20 months; prisoner subjected to several other strict surveillance measures; lack of specific or convincing security requirements (Orłowski v. Poland, Application no. 5648/21, 26 June 2025): violation of Article 3.
In partnership with
Funded by the European Union and the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Robert Carr Fund. Neither the European Union nor the Robert Carr Fund can be held responsible for them.
