This compilation brings together the most important judgments and decisions on prison issues handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By reporting on the main trends in European prison case law, it aims to support legal practitioners in the prison field in their research and litigation, as well as to identify blind spots in European case law and to build strategic litigation avenues.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (No. 4) ■ Applications nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21
Domestic authorities’ failure to address applicant’s complaint concerning the real and immediate risk to his life allegedly originating from the State itself: violation of Article 2.
Applicant simultaneously subjected to a combination of several forms of ill-treatment in detention (arbitrary sleep deprivation for 39 days, including during hunger strike and despite his medical situation; hair forcibly shaved off): violation of Article 3.
NIKITIN v. ESTONIA ■ Application no. 49257/22
Life prisoner separated by a glass partition from his wife and her son during short-term meetings; in the circumstances of the case (default rule of using a glass partition can only be departed from in specific situations and doubts as regards the effectivity of the primary remedy), the assumption that the applicant never requested short-term meetings without a glass partition is immaterial: violation of Article 8.
MUSLIU v. NORTH MACEDONIA (dec.) ■ Application no. 43315/22
Prisoner beaten by a prison guard; Court accepted Government’s unilateral declaration despite the applicant’s wish to continue the examination of the case; applicant argued specifically that the Government failed to specify measures to ensure compliance with the Convention, to remedy the violation and to address structural problems of ill-treatment in prisons: struck out of the list.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Prisoner ineligible to vote in legislative elections; mother of the applicant not allowed to continue the application after his son’s death, on the grounds that the issues at stake are “so closely linked to the person of the original applicant that they cannot be regarded as transferable” (Avdeyenko v. Russia, no. 5696/16, 5 February 2026): struck out of the list.
Russia | Permanent video-surveillance of prisoners, including in a lavatory and/or shower room and by opposite-sex operators; lack of effective remedy in this respect (Krivoshein and Shulayev v. Russia, nos. 35052/18 and 13289/21, 26 February 2026): violation of Articles 8 and 13.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (No. 4) ■ Applications nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21 ■ Third Section ■ 3 February 2026
The summary below is composed of extracts of the legal summary prepared by the Court’s registry. It focuses only on the complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 34.
Art 2 (substantive) ■ Positive obligations ■ Real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life, evident from near-fatal poisoning incident and continuing after his return to Russia and throughout his detention ■ Art 2 applicable ■ Applicant’s request that domestic courts refuse to order his detention as a preventive measure based on the threat to his life allegedly originating from the State itself ■ Domestic courts’ disregard of the Court’s judgment in Navalnyye v. Russia (no. 101/15) in respect of his 2014 conviction, the Court’s interim measure and the Committee of Ministers’ decision and resolutions urging his release ■ Authorities knew or ought to have known there was real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life but failed to address his Art 2 complaints ■ Failure to carry out an adequate risk assessment.
Art 3 (substantive) ■ Applicant simultaneously subjected to a combination of several forms of ill-treatment in detention cumulatively amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment ■ Applicant subjected to sleep deprivation for 39 days on an arbitrary basis, including during hunger strike, and whilst experiencing constant and considerable back pain ■ Applicant’s hair shaved off without any legal basis or valid justification.
Art 34 ■ Hinder the exercise of the right of application ■ Non-compliance with interim measure under Rule 39 to immediately release the applicant.
Facts ■ Following his treatment in Germany following a near-fatal poisoning incident, on 17 January 2021 the applicant voluntarily returned to Russia and was arrested at the official airport border crossing. The two applications concern his arrest and detention, followed by proceedings which culminated in the activation of a suspended prison sentence previously imposed on him in 2014 after his conviction for commercial fraud and money laundering, and his subsequent imprisonment based on that sentence from 2 February 2021 until his death on 16 February 2024.
Law ■ Preliminary issues
(a) Jurisdiction
As regards the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 concerning his detention after 2 February 2021 upon the activation of the suspended part of the prison sentence, the Court reiterated that a period of detention approved before 16 September 2022 (the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention) but extending beyond it fell within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction in its entirety on account of the “continuous” effect of the detention order. The Court also had jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s remaining complaints as the constitutive facts had occurred prior to 16 September 2022.
(b) Consequences of the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings relating to application no. 37083/21
The respondent Government by failing to submit any written observations in respect of application no. 37083/21 had manifested their intention to abstain from further participating in its examination. In that connection, the Court reiterated that the cessation of a Contracting Party’s membership of the Council of Europe did not release it from its duty to cooperate with the Convention bodies. Consequently, the respondent Government’s failure to engage with the proceedings could not be an obstacle to the examination of the application.
(c) Locus standi
The Court found that the applicant’s widow, who had expressed her wish to pursue the applications on behalf of her deceased husband, had a legitimate interest in doing so.
Law ■ Article 2
(a) Applicability
The applicant had been poisoned with a chemical nerve agent prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention while on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow on 20 August 2020. In its judgment of 6 June 2023 in Navalnyye v. Russia (no. 3), the Court had found that that incident had constituted a serious and immediate risk to his life. That had occurred only five months before the applicant’s return to Russia from abroad on 17 January 2021 and his arrest on the same day.
Given that the domestic inquiry had not permitted the establishment of the relevant facts, ruled out the plausible allegations of poisoning for political motives by a substance identified as a chemical weapon prohibited by international and domestic law, or provided any other plausible explanation for the applicant’s sudden illness or identified those responsible, the Court drew appropriate inferences from the failure to conduct a Convention-compliant investigation, as it had previously affirmed that it would do. It found that a real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life had still persisted at the moment of his return to Russia and his arrest on 17 January 2021 and had continued thereafter.
(b) Merits
The applicant had argued that the threat to his life had originated from the State itself and that his placement in custody, under the full control of the authorities, would have heightened that threat. In his view the only adequate preventive measure would have been to refrain from detaining him at all. The claim was thus a novel one, having regard to the existing case‑law in respect of Article 2. It might be distinguished from a request to the State authorities to take measures during an applicant’s imprisonment to protect him or her from third parties such as fellow prisoners as well as from a request to a court to consider the applicant’s state of health when deciding whether or not to impose imprisonment, or to order release from imprisonment. The novelty of the applicant’s argument lay in the fact that he had asked the courts to refuse to order his detention because of a threat from the State itself.
The State had ignored each prior decision and judgment emanating from the Court concerning the applicant. Upon his voluntary return to Russia after the near-fatal poisoning incident, he had been immediately detained and a sentence of imprisonment had then been imposed, all in violation of the Convention’s provisions. In the course of doing so, the domestic courts had demonstrated their disregard of the Court’s judgment in respect of the 2014 conviction and of domestic law, and had refused to accept that had been any risk to the applicant’s life. They had also failed to take into account the Court’s indication of interim measure, as well as the decision and resolutions of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers urging the applicant’s release.
The applicant had argued before the domestic courts – both in the detention proceedings and those to activate his suspended sentence – that his placement in detention would have put his life and health at risk. He had substantiated that argument with reference to the near-fatal poisoning incident and a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which specifically stated that a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group of substances, banned under the Geneva Convention, had been the poisoning agent. The Court thus concluded that the authorities, having been informed of those matters, had known or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life.
Accordingly, the authorities should have addressed the questions of the source of the risk, its level and immediacy, and the range of preventive options (including non‑custodial or enhanced protective arrangements). One obvious issue that had fallen to be assessed had been whether the degree of risk to the applicant had been any worse inside the prison than outside of it, in view of what had been known about the poisoning incident. It was not necessary, however, to consider precisely what would have discharged the domestic courts’ obligation to assess the risk and/or take adequate preventive measures because the courts had simply dismissed the applicant’s arguments summarily and had made no attempt at all to fulfil their obligation under Article 2. In any event, neither they nor any other authority had taken any preventive measures. There had therefore been a failure by the authorities to address the applicant’s complaints under Article 2.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 2.
Law ■ Article 3
Although there was insufficient basis for a finding that the authorities had failed to provide adequate medical care to the applicant, the Court found that he must have endured constant and considerable pain for a prolonged period of time, considering his diagnosis of acute degenerative disease of the lumbosacral region of the spine (with herniated discs and protrusions). He had also been placed in detention only six months after his poisoning which had resulted in a coma and lengthy in-patient and out-patient treatment. Given his recent serious illness and his deep conviction that the State had been responsible for his poisoning, his anxiety about his health, his mistrust of the detention facility’s medical staff and his wish to have access to independent medical care had been understandable. His anxiety must have been further exacerbated by his deteriorating condition. The combination of those factors had rendered the applicant particularly vulnerable – a consideration that had to be taken into account when determining whether the threshold of severity under Article 3 had been reached.
The Court found that the applicant had been simultaneously subjected to a combination of several forms of ill-treatment. The applicant, who had been particularly vulnerable and in pain, had been subjected to sleep deprivation for 39 days as a result of night checks waking him up every two hours. The Court found that this had been done on an arbitrary basis. The night checks had continued while he had been on hunger strike and experiencing back pain which would have increased his distress and suffering.
Furthermore, the applicant’s hair had been shaved off without any legal basis or valid justification. Those aspects of his detention, taken together, had reflected a pattern of disregard for the applicant’s health, well-being and dignity which had had the effect of humiliating and debasing him and arousing in him feelings of fear and anguish capable of breaking his moral and physical resistance. Cumulatively, they had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Law ■ Article 34
The Court concluded that the domestic authorities had manifestly not fulfilled their obligation to comply with the interim measure indicated on 16 February 2021 to the Russian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should be immediately released. The applicant had remained in detention until his death three years later. In the circumstances of the present case, there had been nothing to absolve the authorities of that obligation. On the contrary, it was clear that the reason for the failure to comply had been the Government’s refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Court’s interim measure.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 34 (State party’s failure to comply with its obligations).
Article 41 ■ EUR 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
NIKITIN v. ESTONIA ■ Application no. 49257/22 ■ Third Section Committee ■ 3 February 2026
Art 8 ■ Life prisoner separated by a glass partition from his wife and her son during short-term prison visits ■ Communication only over intercom system ■ Default rule of using a glass partition can only be departed from under specific conditions ■ No assessment of individual risks justifying the use of a glass partition.
Facts ■ At the material time, the applicant, a life prisoner, was detained in Viru prison. He complained that he was separated by a glass partition from his wife and her son during prison visits that took place between June 2018 and December 2019, his short. Communications with his visitors could only take place through an intercom system.
The prison administration and domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s submissions that the physical separation during the meetings had violated his rights. In particular, the Court of Appeal stressed that the applicant had never filed a request with the prison administration that the visits be organised in a room without a glass partition (he filed a complaint for compensation only in November 2020) and therefore failed to use a primary remedy. The Court of Appeal also found that, in any event, the interference with the applicants’ rights had not been particularly severe to warrant monetary compensation.
Law ■ Article 8
The Court noted that it was not contested that there had been an interference with the applicant’s private and family life, that the interference was in accordance with the law, and that it pursued the “legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting the health and rights of others” (§ 12).
The Court rejected the Government’s submission that the case at hand differs from the case of Kalda v. Estonia (no. 35245/19, 1 March 2022), in which a violation of Article 8 was found in similar circumstances. The Government stressed in particular that “unlike the applicant in Kalda, the applicant in the case at hand had never requested that meetings be held without a glass partition […] and was thus responsible for the impugned interference” (§ 13).
The Court declared it was not convinced that even “on the assumption that the applicant never requested short-term meetings without a glass partition, he can be reproached for not having done so” and concluded that the factual difference outlined between the two cases cannot “provide any grounds for different conclusions to be drawn on the merits” (§ 16). It pointed in particular shortcomings in the legal framework governing short-term visits, noting that the “default rule of using a glass partition” (§ 15) can only be departed from under specific conditions, which the applicant might not have fulfilled. The Court noted in this respect that although the Appeal Court pointed that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the prison administration, it also noted that the Appeal Court itself “expressed doubts as to whether using that remedy would (on each occasion) have been effective” (§ 15).
The Court also dismissed the Government’s argument that the use of a glass partition for short-term meetings was required due to overall security concerns. It noted in particular that the domestic authorities “never explained or analysed which exact risks emanating from the applicant were relevant in the context of his requests to meet his wife and her son” (§ 17).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; no claim in respect of costs and expenses.
MUSLIU v. NORTH MACEDONIA (dec.) ■ Application no. 43315/22 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 5 February 2026
Art 3 ■ Prisoner beaten by a prison guard ■ Lack of investigation by domestic authorities ■ Court accepted Government’s unilateral declaration owing to fair amount of compensation and well-established case law ■ Court struck the case out of the list, despite the applicant’s wish for for the examination of the case to be continued.
Facts ■ The applicant alleged that, while he was serving his prison sentence, he had been beaten by a prison guard in front of the prison canteen. He complained under Article 3 both about the fact that he had been assaulted and about the fact that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.
Law ■ Article 3
The Court accepted the Government’s unilateral declaration and decided to strike the case out of the list. It did so although the applicant had declared himself unsatisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration, pointing in particular that the Government failed “to specify the measures envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention, to remedy the violation found, and to address the structural problems concerning ill-treatment, as well as to implement the necessary reforms”.
Nonetheless, the Court noted that Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention allows it to strike out applications even if the applicant wishes for the examination of the case to be continued. Noting that it had already established “its practice concerning complaints relating to ill‑treatment under Article 3”, including in cases concerning North Macedonia, and that the Government’s declaration contained both a recognition of the violation and an amount of compensation consistent with the amounts awarded by it in similar cases, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the case.
The Court however stressed that “the decision in question is without prejudice to the Government’s obligation to conduct an investigation in compliance with the requirements of the Convention in view of their acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant’s rights protected under Article 3 of the Convention”. It must be noted in this respect that in the three judgments concerning North Macedonia mentioned by the Court in its judgment, a violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb had been found (El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/0913 December 2012; Kitanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 15191/12, 22 January 2015; X and Y v. North Macedonia, no. 173/17, 5 November 2020).
Conclusion ■ Struck out of the list of cases.
In partnership with
Funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the Robert Carr Fund. The Robert Carr Fund cannot be held responsible for them.
