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 >> JULY-AUGUST 2025 / SEPTEMBER 2025
JULY-AUGUST 2025
READ THE FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
MAGYAR AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (dec.) ■ Applications nos. 21083/23 and 7 others
Rejection by domestic court of prisoners’ request to review their life sentences, recognised by the Court as ‘irreducible’ in previous judgments: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
TAŞ v. TÜRKİYE (dec.) ■ Application no. 40924/19
Two-month delay in providing a prisoner with medical equipment prescribed by a doctor (back pain); applicant failed to demonstrate that he had filed a petition with the prison administration requesting these items: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
HAYES AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM ■ Applications nos. 56532/22 and 2 others
No risk of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole which would be irreducible de facto and de jure in the event of the applicants’ extradition to, and conviction in, the USA; compassionate release considered a satisfactory review mechanism; mandatory sentence of life imprisonment not considered grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case: no violation of Article 3.
ZEYNALOV AND SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN ■ Application no. 29041/14
Prisoner subjected to personal search before and after meetings with his lawyer, lawyer’s documents inspected following meetings with his client in prison, and seizure by prison staff of a letter addressed to a third person entrusted by the prisoner to his lawyer for posting; interference with lawyer-client communications without any suspicion of wrongdoing; the fact that the letter was not addressed to the prisoner’s lawyer is incapable of justifying the interference: violation of Article 8.
UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIA [GC] ■ Applications nos. 8019/16 and 3 others
Administrative practices in occupied territory of Ukraine resulting in grave human rights violations perpetrated by Russian or Russian-controlled forces.
Extrajudicial killings, including during detention, of civilians and prisoners of war: violation of Article 2.
Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and appalling conditions of detention of civilians and prisoners of war: violation of Article 3.
Forced labour of civilians and prisoners of war: violation of Article 4 § 2.
Unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians: violation of Article 5.
Unjustified displacement and transfer of civilians in detention and application of filtration measures: violation of Article 8.
Respondent Government failed to provide information requested by the Court: violation of Article 38.
Article 46: Respondent State to release or safely return all persons who were deprived of liberty on Ukrainian territory under occupation by the Russian and Russian-controlled forces in breach of Article 5 before 16 September 2022 and who were still in the custody of the Russian authorities.
GULLOTTI v. ITALY ■ Application no. 64753/14
Unjustified additional limitation of applicant’s right to correspondence during special regime detention (’41 bis’): violation of Article 8.
ZLOBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 9096/13 and 9 others
Prisoners’ rights organisation and its director ordered to delete and refute online publications made on the conditions of detention, as well ill-treatment and torture in a correctional colony for women following a defamation dispute: violation of Article 10.
GÜNGÖRAY v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 33975/21
Prisoner with allergic asthma exposed to passive smoking for one year and seven months despite medical reports recommending his transfer to a non-smoking cell; transfer not effected after COVID-19 risks had decreased: violation of Article 3.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Inadequate conditions of detention during prisoners’ transport – inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric or natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, absence of windows, passive smoking, transportation at night (Sokolov and Medvedkova v. Russia, nos. 42076/20 and 43729/20, 10 July 2025): violation of Article 3.
Russia | Permanent video surveillance of prisoners in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities, including lavatory and/or shower room and by opposite-sex operators; restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; inability to take part in parliamentary elections (Tingayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42870/16 and 12 others, 10 July 2025): violation of Article 8; violation of Article 3 of Protocol no. 1.
Ukraine | Life-sentenced prisoners deprived of clear and realistic prospects of early release until 3 March 2023 reform (Kovalenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 22971/19 and 24 others, 28 August 2025): violation of Article 3 for the period between the date of the applicants’ final sentencing to life imprisonment until 3 March 2023; no violation of Article 3 after that date.
Armenia | Prisoner with health conditions (severe diabetes, heart condition, serious mobility problems) not provided with adequate medical treatment; restricted use of sanitary facilities owing to their lack of accessibility for persons with limited mobility; no daily assistance provided for the administration of medication and the maintenance of personal hygiene, which was instead carried out by other prisoners (Grigoryan v. Armenia, no. 14875/23, 28 August 2025): violation of Article 3.
SEPTEMBER 2025
READ THE FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
YALAHOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (dec.) ■ Application no. 42341/21
Recall of a prisoner released on licence while serving a fixed-term determinate sentence: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
TATIČ v. SLOVAKIA ■ Application no. 8280/23
Systematic practice of routine, thorough strip searches of a prisoner in the absence of convincing security reasons: violation of Article 3.
GERGELY v. ROMANIA ■ Application no. 46890/21
Refusal to provide a prisoner with meals in accordance with his new religion (Islam); requirement for him to provide documentary evidence of his religious conversion: violation of Article 9.
AKTAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 7199/20 and 6 others
Refusal by the prison authorities to hand over publications (books, newspapers) sent to prisoners by post; measure not based on a content-specific analysis capable of justifying the interference: violation of Article 10.
HORA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM ■ Application no. 1048/20
Ineligibility of a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment to vote in the 2019 parliamentary election: no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Russia | Inadequate conditions of detention during prisoners’ transport – overcrowding, lack of or poor-quality bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to showers, toilets, or warm water (Mazurin and Grebennikov v. Russia, nos. 49870/20 and 3757/21, 18 September 2025): violation of Article 3.
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
C.J. [GC] ■ Case C‑305/22 (Request for a preliminary ruling, Romania)
The decision of the executing judicial authority to refuse the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for the purpose of enforcing a criminal sentence, and to assume responsibility for the enforcement of that sentence, is subject to the consent of the issuing State, in accordance with the rules laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909.
The issuing State may refuse this assumption of responsibility by the executing State on the basis of considerations relating to its criminal policy, even where considerations relating to the requested person’s reintegration into society would argue in favour of enforcing that sentence in another Member State.
Where the executing State has not followed the procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909 as regards the recognition of that judgment and the assumption of responsibility, the issuing State retains the right to enforce that sentence and, consequently, to maintain the EAW.
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.
