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 >> JANUARY 2025 / FEBRUARY 2025 / MARCH 2025
JANUARY 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA ■ Application no. 51448/15
Unilateral declaration submitted by the authorities not containing an undertaking to reopen the investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s son; amount of compensation proposed not consistent with the amount that the Court would award in respect of just satisfaction in a similar case: Government’s request for the application to be struck out rejected (Article 37 § 1).
Ineffective investigation into the applicant’s son’s death while in detention; refusal of the authorities to involve the applicant in the investigations; lack of public scrutiny of the investigations: violation of Article 2 (procedural).
Ineffective investigations not able to account for the applicant’s son’s death while in detention and under the exclusive control of the authorities: violation of Article 2 (substantive).
Court unable to conclusively establish the existence of an effective mechanism for establishing any institutional liability on the part of State bodies for a breach of Article 2 if the relevant domestic proceedings did not end in prosecution and/or a conviction; amount of potential compensation constituting insufficient redress: violation of Article 13.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Permanent video surveillance, including by opposite-sex operators, in prison cells and in lavatory and shower rooms (Urazalin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30580/21 and 30 others, 16 January 2025): violation of Article 8
Russia | Inadequate conditions of detention of prisoners under strict imprisonment regime (Pulyalin and Others v. Russia, nos. 1058/17 and 10 others, 16 January 2025; Kuchev and Others v. Russia, nos. 3234/17 and 12 others, 16 January 2025; Degtyarev and Others v. Russia, nos. 19573/21 and 10 others, 16 January 2025): violation of Article 3.
Türkiye | Seizure of manuscripts (works of fiction, personal diary, poetry book, personal notebook) by the prison administration (Gülmez and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 27499/20 and 6 others, 16 January 2025): violation of Article 10.
FEBRUARY 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
M.B. v. SPAIN ■ Application no. 38239/22
Imposition of a security measure of continued detention on mental health grounds on the basis of medical reports dating from the commission of the offence almost two years earlier; no assessment of the need to monitor the applicant on the basis of a prediction of her future behaviour: violation of Article 5 § 1.
PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA (dec.) ■ Application no. 6035/19
Disciplinary sanction of seven days of additional cleaning duties in response to stickers deemed offensive by the prison administration: complaint under Article 10 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Administrative remedy ineffective due to lack of independence of the authority examining complaints; judicial remedy ineffective due to uncertainty as to judicial review of disciplinary sanctions: complaint under Article 13 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Disciplinary sanctions imposed to silence the applicant as president of a prisoners rights’ organisation: complaint under Article 18 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Inadequate conditions of transport of prisoners (Tashuyev v. Russia, no. 67503/17, 6 February 2025): violation of Article 3.
Russia | Denial of family visits in pre-trial detention facilities (Golubev v. Russia, no. 66647/17, 6 February 2025 and Bikbulatov v. Russia no. 71537/17, 6 February 2025): violation of Article 8.
Court of Justice of the European Union
ALCHASTER II (AG Opinion) ■ 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).
MARCH 2025
READ FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
RIGÓ v. HUNGARY ■ Application no. 54953/21
Refusal of a prisoner’s request for leave from prison to attend the funerals of his close relatives, solely on the basis of the Covid-19 pandemic context, without an individual assessment of the health risk to the applicant or to third parties: violation of Article 8.
KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 82352/17 and 3 others
Prisoners placed in solitary confinement for extended periods; additional restrictions (limited access to outdoor exercise, limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside), poor detention conditions: violation of Article 3.
GÖZÜTOK v. TÜRKIYE (dec.) ■ Application no. 41412/21
Applicant with cardiovascular disease handcuffed during medical examination: complaint under Article 3 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Security measures, including escort and body search, applied in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic; detention conditions in quarantine ward; exposure to passive smoking: complaint under Article 3 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
POULOPOULOS v. GREECE ■ Application no. 27936/18
Terminally ill prisoner (hepatic cancer, hepatic cirrhosis) held in poor detention conditions in a prison hospital (overcrowding, poor hygiene, absence of the prescribed special food regime): violation of Article 3.
Absence of effective remedy in this respect: violation of Article 13.
NIORT v. ITALY ■ Application no. 4217/23
Failure of the authorities to adequately assess the compatibility of a prisoner’s state of health (personality disorder, borderline disorder and antisocial disorder) with his continued detention, despite numerous elements raising doubts as to the compatibility in question: violation of Article 3 (procedural).
Failure by the authorities to implement judicial decisions requiring the applicant to be transferred to a prison where he could receive adequate medical care: violation of Article 6§1 (civil).
The applicant’s psychiatric disorders did not prevent him from understanding and benefiting from the aim of social reintegration pursued by the detention: application under Article 5§1 a) inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Failure of the State to fulfil its obligation to provide all the information necessary to establish the facts: violation of Article 38.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Hungary | Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; mandatory pardon proceedings taking place only after forty years (Pápics and Others v. Hungary, no. 13727/20 and 15 Others, 4 March 2025): violation of Article 3.
Russia | Inadequate conditions of transport of prisoners (Sannikov v. Russia, no. 176/22, 6 March 2025): violation of Article 3.
Russia | Lack of or delay in providing adequate medical treatment in detention for prisoners suffering from HIV, tooth loss and dental pain (Gordiyenok and Turpulkhanov v. Russia, nos. 47120/22 and 19373/23, 6 March 2025): violation of Articles 3 and 13.
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.
