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 European case law to build strategic litigation avenues.
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Recording and storage of private correspondence on a national judicial computer system; measure based on unpublished regulations to which prisoners did not have access: violation of Article 8.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
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.
Russia | Routine handcuffing of a prisoner under strict imprisonment regime (Khubiyev v. Russia, no. 11687/21, 12 June 2025): violation of Article 3.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
UYGUN v. TÜRKIYE ■ Application no. 9389/19 ■ Second Section ■ 3 June 2025
Art 8 ■ Correspondence ■ Refusal of domestic authorities to dispatch a letter sent by the applicant to his fiancée based on an interpretation of a paragraph as evidence of his ongoing involvement in a terrorist organization he was charged with being a member of ■ Written correspondence was the applicant’s only means of communication with his fiancée ■ Failure to balance competing interests at stake and prevent a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right ■ Lack of adequate safeguards ■ Impugned measure not strictly required by special circumstances of the state of emergency.
Facts ■ In December 2017, the applicant was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment for membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure”), which was considered by the national authorities to have instigated the 2016 coup attempt. The judgment only became final in November 2018, after the applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Regional Court and the Court of Cassation.
In June 2018, while he was detained pending appeal, the applicant submitted a ten-page letter to the prison administration to be sent to his fiancée. The prison’s Disciplinary Board found that a paragraph of the letter fell under the legal provision that grants it the authority to censor or retain prisoners’ correspondence if considered a threat to the prison’s security. The Disciplinary Board considered that “the applicant’s statements in the letter suggested an intention to prevent [a] person mentioned [in the letter] from informing on the FETÖ/PDY and that the applicant continued to have ties with that organisation and to play an active role within it” (§ 13) and refused to send the applicant’s letter to his fiancée. It also based its decision on previous incidents involving the applicant (confiscation of a notebook containing information about his cellmate, unauthorized telephone conversation with his fiancée).
The Disciplinary Board also ordered that the letter be retained for potential use in future legal proceedings, and that the decision not to send the letter be forwarded to the local Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate an investigation into the content of the letter. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute, on grounds of lack of new evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the offence of membership in the organisation.
The applicant’s applications against the Disciplinary Board’s decision were rejected by the enforcement judge, the Assize Court and the Constitutional Court.
Law ■ Article 8
(a) Admissibility
General principles: on the “significant disadvantage” admissibility criterion, see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and others, § 62, 6 December 2022; on the authorities’ obligation to assist prisoners to sustain ties with the outside world in order to promote their social rehabilitation, see Danilevich v. Russia, no. 31469/08, § 47, 19 October 2021 and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, § 88, 7 March 2017.
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had not suffered any “significant disadvantage”, since “the subjective importance of the matter to the applicant [was] evident, as he clearly sought to maintain contact with his fiancée” (§47). Furthermore, the Court noted that the elements submitted before it tend to confirm the applicant’s claim that written correspondence was the only means available to him to communicate with his fiancée during the relevant period, since he had not been permitted to call her or to receive visits from her during a year of his detention that coincided with the state of emergency.
The Court also observed that the applicant was close to marriage with his fiancée, “a relationship that falls within the scope of private life under Article 8” (ibid., referring to Hofmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 1289/09, 23 February 2010, and Wakefield v. the United Kingdom, no. 15817/89, 1 October 1990).
Lastly, the Court stressed that “Article 8 of the Convention requires the State to assist prisoners as far as possible to create and sustain ties with people outside prison in order to promote prisoners’ social rehabilitation” (ibid., referring to Danilevich v. Russia and Polyakova and Others v. Russia).
(b) Merits
General principles: on the authorities interference with the right to correspondence, see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 140, 17 September 2009; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 37, 30 May 2006; Nuh Uzun v. Turkey, nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, § 83, 29 March 2022; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 43750/06 and 4 others, § 51, 22 April 2014; Halit Kara v. Türkiye, no. 60846/19, §§ 43-47 and 51-59, 12 December 2023. On the control of prisoners’ correspondence, see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5947/72, § 98, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Klibisz v. Poland, no. 2235/02, § 338, 4 October 2016. On the consideration that the opportunity to write and to receive letters is sometimes the prisoner’s only link with the outside world, see: Campbell v. the United Kingdom, no. 13590/88, § 45, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233 and Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 142, 12 February 2013.
The Court found that the refusal of the authorities to send the applicant’s letter to his fiancée constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8, that the interference had a legal basis and pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of disorder or crime. However, the Court considered the measure not to be necessary in a democratic society.
First, the Court noted that the Assize Court endorsed the reasoning of the enforcement judge (who rejected the applicant’s application against the decision of the Disciplinary Board), without examining the applicant’s arguments – namely that the public prosecutor had declined to investigate the letter, and the fact that the disciplinary and judicial investigations concerning the other incidents taken into account by the Disciplinary Board in its decision (confiscation of a notebook, unauthorised phone call) were ultimately discontinued.
Second, the Court noted that the prison authorities and the domestic courts failed to consider whether the letter could have been sent after redacting the contested paragraph, considering that the letter was ten pages long and that written correspondence was then the applicant’s only means of communication with his fiancée – a circumstance of “particular significance” (§ 68). The Court stressed in this respect that “the authorities did not assert that the applicant was corresponding with convicted persons or with dangerous individuals, but rather with a person whom the applicant was reportedly about to marry and with whom he had previously exchanged several letters without hindrance” (§ 69).
Consequently, the Court found that the authorities failed to “fulfil their task of balancing the competing interests at stake and preventing a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence” (§ 70).
The fact that the impugned measure was taken in the context of the state of emergency following the 2016 coup attempt did not lead the Court to change its conclusion. The Court observed that “the legal basis for the interference was ordinary law, and that the prison authorities’ control over prisoners’ correspondence had not been established in response to the emergency following the attempted military coup” (§ 71). It also noted that none of the judicial bodies having reviewed the measure in question made specific reference to the state of emergency.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
ÖZDEMİR v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 38351/20 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 10 June 2025
Art 8 ■ Correspondence ■ Refusal of domestic authorities to dispatch a letter sent to the applicant by his wife ■ Letter contained a printed annex including documents in English, which prevented the administration from ascertaining its content ■ Failure of the authorities to provide sufficient explanation as to how the interception of the letter could have been justified to prevent disorder or crime.
Facts ■ At the material time, the applicant was detained in Çanakkale Prison on charges of membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (“FETÖ/PDY”).
On 14 December 2018, the Disciplinary Board of the prison decided not to deliver to the applicant a letter sent to him by his wife, which contained a petition addressed to the Çanakkale Assize Court and a printout of an eighteen-page annex to it, parts of which were in English. The Disciplinary Board based its decision on the ground that “the printed annex did not qualify as an official document, that its origin could not be verified, and that they could not ascertain what the content written in English was” (§ 3).
On 11 January 2019, the Disciplinary Board refused to deliver a second letter sent by the applicant’s wife, on the grounds that it contained a handwritten copy of the document that was annexed to the first intercepted letter of 14 December 2018.
The applicant challenged this second decision. The Çanakkale Enforcement Judge ruled that the Disciplinary Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and the prescribed procedure; the Çanakkale First Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal; and the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
Law ■ Article 8
(a) Admissibility
General principles: Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 12200/08 and 2 others, §§ 79-81, 16 July 2019.
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had abused the right to individual application before the Court since he had only challenged the refusal to deliver the letter from 11 January 2019 instead of the letter of 14 December 2018, in respect of which the statutory time-limit for legal action had expired, although their content was identical.
The Court considered that the legal actions undertaken by the applicant at domestic level “cannot be considered to be manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention” and do not “impede the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it” (§ 17).
(b) Merits
General principles: Halit Kara v. Türkiye, no. 60846/19, §§ 43-47 and 51-59, 12 December 2023.
The Court acknowledged that the interference with the applicant’s rights had a legal basis and can be “considered to pursue the legitimate aim of prevention of disorder or crime” (§ 22, referring to Halit Kara, § 50).
As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court found that the domestic authorities did not provide a sufficient explanation as to why intercepting the letter sent to the applicant was necessary to “achieve the legitimate aim pursued” (§ 25).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Article 41 ■ The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit.
KACIR AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ■ Applications nos. 9587/19 and 36 others ■ Second Section Committee ■ 10 June 2025
Art 3 ■ Overcrowding ■ Lack of personal space ■ Other elements of detention conditions (inadequate ventilation, insufficient sanitary facilities and hygiene, passive smoking) not reaching the severity threshold.
Art 8 ■ 600-700km distance between place of detention and family residence ■ Refusal to transfer to a prison closer to family due to prison overcrowding ■ Restriction of visiting rights solely based on overcrowding ■ Recording and storage of private correspondence in judicial network system, based on unpublished regulations to which prisoners did not have access.
Facts ■ At the material time, the 37 applicants were detained in closed penal institutions for terrorism-related offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
The applications concerned material detention conditions due to prison overcrowding (all applicants), which constrained some of them to sleep on mattresses on the floor (12 applicants), sanitary and hygiene conditions (six applicants), insufficient number of toilets and showers in the unit, which had resulted in long queues (10 applicants), insufficient ventilation (two applicants) and passive smoking (one applicant).
Furthermore, five applicants complaints about separate issues under Article 8 – 600-700 km distance between an applicant’s place of detention and his family’s place of residence (one applicant), domestic authorities’ refusal to grant permission to receive visits from school-aged children during the weekends (three applicants), electronic recording and storage of private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP, one applicant).
Law ■ Article 3
General principles: İlerde and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, 5 December 2023; Muršićv. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑141, 20 October 2016.
The Court took note of the information provided by the Government (Appendix II), indicating the size of the cells in which the applicants were held, as well as the minimum and maximum living space available to each applicant, depending on the number of persons detained with them during the relevant period. The Court however noted that “these figures were not supported by a prison register, and the periods when the number of inmates was below the maximum were not specified” (§ 31). The Court revised those figures, excluding the sanitary facilities and outdoor yards from the calculation of the overall space, in line with the methodology adopted in the case İlerde and Others (Appendix III).
(a) Conclusion in respect of applicants who had less than 3 sq. m of personal space
The Court noted that all but two applicants had been held in cells in which they had less than 3 sq. m of personal space for periods that were “neither short nor occasional” (§ 35). The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 for all but two applicants, and found it “unnecessary […] to address separately the applicants’ remaining allegations concerning the material conditions of their detention during such periods” (ibid).
(b) Conclusion in respect of applicants who had between 3 sq. m and 4 sq. m of personal space
The Court noted that two applicants had more than 3 sq. m of living space during the entire period of their detention. Those two applicants, as well as the other applicants, had a personal space comprising between 3 to 4 sq. m during unspecified periods of their detention.
The Court refered to its judgment in the case İlerde and Others in which it had examined similar issues (including inadequate ventilation, insufficient sanitary facilities and hygiene and restrictions on water) but had considered that the “cumulative impact of these conditions did not meet the severity threshold required to qualify as inhuman or degrading under Article 3 of the Convention” (§ 37), and saw no reason to depart from this finding.
The Court also considered that the exposure of one applicant to passive smoking had not “subjected him to distress or hardship exceeding the inevitable suffering inherent in detention” (§ 38) – taken alone or in combination with other factors. The Court based its conclusion on the following facts: the applicant only raised the issue three months after being transferred to another prison; he did not complain about being exposed to passive smoking during his over three-year detention period in the prison in which he was initially held; and he did not “present factual allegations or initiate evidence regarding the actual intensity of passive smoking or its alleged negative effects on his physical or mental well-being” (idem, referring a contrario to Elefteriadis v. Romania, no. 38427/05, § 51, 25 January 2011).
(c) Conclusion in respect of applicants who had more than 4 sq. m of personal space
Having examined the relevant elements regarding the periods during which the applicants had more than 4 sq. m of personal living space, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 3 in respect of applicants who had less than 3 sq. m of personal space (35 applicants), No violation of Article 3 in respect of applicants who had more than 3 sq. m of personal space (2 applicants) and in respect of the remainder of the detention of the other applicants.
Law ■ Article 8
General principles: on the distance between the place of detention and the family’s place of residence, see İlerde and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, §§ 212-20, 5 December 2023; on the limitation of visiting rights, see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 73, 6 December 2022; on the recording and storage of correspondence in the UYAP system, see Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey, nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, §§ 79-99, 29 March 2022.
(a) Conclusion in respect of the applicant detained far away from his family’s place of residence (one applicant)
The Court found that the elements submitted by the applicant demonstrated that there had been an interference to his right to respect for his private and family life (his family’s location, their financial circumstances, the duration of the over 600 km travel required to visit him; the fact that the applicant’s mother, father, and one of his children visited him only once between 19 July 2016 and 31 August 2018).
The Court noted that the prison administration’s refusal to transfer the applicant closer to his family was based on prison overcrowding, “without any further assessment of whether alternative measures to alleviate the applicant’s grievances could be taken” (§ 49), such as longer visits or longer telephone calls. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8.
The Court stressed that the fact that the applicant was eventually transferred, approximately five months after his initial request, to a prison located closer to his family’s place of residence, but in a city in which neither his family nor his parents resided, could not alter its conclusion.
(b) Conclusion in respect of the refusal of the national authorities to restrict three applicants’ visiting rights with their children on weekends (three applicants)
The Court recalled its previous case law, in which it had found a violation of Article 8 “as the impugned restrictions affecting the applicants were taken solely on the basis of the capacity of the prisons and without taking into account the prisoners’ right to respect for their family life and their relationships with their children […] and as the domestic courts reviewing those restrictions failed to make a Convention-compliant assessment (§ 59, mentioning Subaşı and Others, §§ 90-91). The Court stressed that it had found that the domestic legal framework did not provide the applicants with sufficient protection against arbitrary interference with their right to respect for family life. It saw no reason to depart from this earlier conclusion.
In the case of one applicant, the impugned measure partially coincided with the state of emergency period (in force between 21 July 2016 and 18 July 2018), in the context of which the Government had transmited a notice of derogation to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 15. However, since the legal framework was found not to provide protection against arbitrary interference, the Court considered that the measure could not “be said to have been strictly required by the special circumstances of the state of emergency” (§ 60).
(c) Conclusion in respect of applicant the recording and storage of an applicant’s private correspondence on the UYAP system (one applicant)
The Court recalled that it had found the measure not to be in accordance with the law as it was based on unpublished regulations to which the applicants could not have access (§ 64, referring to Nuh Uzun and Others, §§ 79‑99) and saw no reason to depart from this conclusion.
For this reason, the Court dismissed the Government’s argument that the measure fell under the derogation notice under Article 15 of the Convention
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 8 (5 applicants).
Article 41 ■ Between EUR 1,000 and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for all 37 applicants; between EUR 440 and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses for 24 applicants.
GALYTSKYY v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 9151/17 ■ Fifth Section Committee ■ 26 June 2025
Art 3 (procedural) ■ Five-year delay before the Prosecutor opened an investigation after it was ordered by the court ■ Refusal of the Prosecution to grant the applicant victim status.
Art 3 (substantive) ■ Applicant hospitalised 10 days after his admission in detention, despite initial medical examinations not disclosing any health problems ■ 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.
Facts ■ On 26 December 2007 the applicant was placed in detention after he was found to have breached the terms of the conditional suspended prison sentence previously imposed on him. Medical examinations conducted showed no injuries or health concerns.
On 27 December 2007, the applicant transferred to the Kryvyi Rih pre‑trial detention centre (“SIZO”). On the same day, he was severely beaten by prison officers, and spent three days in the SIZO medical unit. On 4 January 2008, he was transferred to the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO, where he was immediately hospitalised on account of a closed femoral neck fracture.
The applicant was released on 13 February 2009. Following a deterioration and additional examination, he was certified as having a third degree disability due to his hip injury and was granted life-long disability status.
From 2009, the applicant filed several complaints with the prosecution authorities to open a criminal investigation into the matter, but these complaints were rejected. The Prosecutor’s Office eventually opened an investigation in February 2014, after having been ordered to do so by a court. In April 2014, the investigation was discontinued as “there was no indication of any criminal offence” (§ 12). All relevant records from the Kryvyi Rih SIZO had been destroyed after the end of the storage period, and the applicant’s medical file from the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO hospital had been lost, renderinng medical expert examinations impossible. Based on testimonies from the Kryvyi Rih SIZO doctor (who stated that the applicant had been lame in the right leg due to chronic thrombophlebitis) and from the applicant’s neighbours (who said that the applicant was often found drunk “ to the point of falling asleep on the stairs”, ibid), the prosecution concluded that the applicant might have sustained the hip injury prior to his detention.
The Prosecutor was ordered to open a new investigation in October 2014. This second investigation was discontinued on similar grounds in August 2016.
Law ■ Article 3
General principles: Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, 28 September 2015; Djundiks v. Latvia, no. 14920/05, § 52, 15 April 2014; Türkan v. Turkey, no. 33086/04, § 43, 18 September 2008; Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 68, 21 July 2011.
(a) Procedural limb
The Court noted that “no full-fledged investigation was launched until almost five years after the applicant had raised his complaint for the first time” (§ 19) and that at the time the investigation was eventually launched, most of the documents had been lost or destroyed.
The Court found that this “flagrant and entirely unjustified delay” demonstrated a “lack of will on the part of the domestic authorities to establish the truth and, if applicable, to bring those responsible to justice” (ibid). The Court also found “unacceptable” (ibid) that the prosecutor in charge of the investigation rejected as unfounded the applicant’s request to be granted the procedural status of victim (he was instead examined as a witness).
The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.
(b) Substantive limb
The Court dismissed the Government’s objection that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that he had sustained his hip injury in prison. The Court noted that while the applicant had not reported injuries or health issues during the medical examinations carried out at the beginning of his detention, he was hospitalised for a hip fracture about ten days later.
According to the Court, the Government’s argument that the applicant may have sustained this hip injury prior to his detention “appears to be nothing more than an attempt to reverse the burden of proof” (§ 22).
The Court therefore concluded that it had been established that “the applicant was injured while under the control of the State and that no plausible explanation has been provided for his injury other than the ill-treatment alleged” (§ 23).
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 3 (substantive and procedural).
Article 41 ■ EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,800 in respect of cost and expenses.
BENYUKH v. UKRAINE ■ Application no. 39150/20 ■ Fifth Section Committee ■ 26 June 2025
Art 3 ■ Inadequate dental treatment ■ Prisoner with adentia eligible for dentures free of charge ■ Dentures not provided due to legislative, administrative and financial obstacles ■ Provision of dentures not initiated by the authorities, but by a proactive initiative of an NGO ■ 19-month period between the adentia diagnosis and the completion of the denture fitting process.
Facts ■ The applicant is a life prisoner (having started to serve his sentence in 1999) with no financial means. The documents submitted to the Court confirm that at least since October 2019, the applicant was diagnosed by a dentist with full maxillary and partial mandibular adentia (absence of teeth). The dentist recommended that he be fitted with dentures.
On 22 October 2019, the prison medical facility asked the municipal authorities to consider providing the applicant with dentures free of charge. On 28 October 2019 the municipal authorities rejected this request, arguing that no contract for the provision of dentures for prisoners had been concluded between the prison medical facility and the relevant municipal healthcare institutions, and that the municipal budget does not include costs related to prisoners’ dentures.
The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 4 November 2020.
In March 2021, a NGO (Youth with a Mission, Молодь з місією), offered the prison authorities to provide free dental care to a limited number of prisoners. In September 2021, the applicant’s denture fitting process was completed.
Law ■ Article 3
(a) Admissibility
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had abused the right to individual application because he had not informed the Court of the fact that he had been provided with free dentures.
The Court noted that the denture fitting process lasted between May 2021 and September 2021, and that the applicant had informed it of its completion in November 2021, in his reply to the Government’s observations. It stressed that the applicant could not be required to inform the Court of this new development when the fitting process was ongoing.
(b) Merits
General principles: V.D. v. Romania, no. 7078/02, §§ 92-99, 16 February 2010.
The Court observed that the applicant was eligible to receive dentures free of charge, based on the legislation on medical care for prisoners which “guarantees the provision of free dentures to prisoners who do not fall within the category of vulnerable persons entitled to them as a social benefit, [but] have no means to pay for them and have an established medical need for dentures” (§ 5).
However, these legal provisions were “rendered ineffective by a combination of legislative, administrative and financial obstacle” (§ 16) – from a lack of legal framework enabling cooperation between the prison and municipal authorities, and a lack of funding.
The Court also observed that although the applicant was eventually provided with dentures, this is only thanks to the intervention of the NGO “Youth with a Mission” while the authorities did not play “any role in the process beyond allowing the applicant to accept the charitable help offered” (§ 17; the Court also quoted a contrario Stojanović v. Serbia, no. 34425/04, §§ 24-25 and 76-81, 19 May 2009 and Radu v. Romania (striking out) (dec.) [Committee], no. 34751/09, 1 October 2013, where the applicants were eventually provided with dentures at the initiative of the authorities, which covered their full costs).
Furthermore, the Court noted that while the authorities had been aware of the applicant’s need for dentures at least since October 2022, the denture fitting process only started in May 2021, i.e. more than 19 months later – and at the initiative of the NGO. Although this 19-month period was shorter than in comparable cases (e.g. more than three years in Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 37075/14, § 55, 8 November 2016), it was “still considerable” (§ 20, mentioning T.K. v. Lithuania, no. 14000/12, §§ 83 and 87, 12 June 2018, where the applicant had been deprived of glasses during almost five months; and Saat v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 23939/20, §§ 7-9, 6 September 2022, where the applicant was deprived of his contact lenses for three weeks).
Lastly, the Court stressed that “the lack of dentures had caused [the applicant] pain, changed his speech and facial appearance” (§ 21), and that this situation was further aggravated by his medical condition (chronic gastroduodenitis and pancreatitis diagnosed in October 2020).
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 3.
Law ■ Article 13
Relying on its well-established case law, the Court also concluded that the applicant had no effective remedy in respect of inadequate dental treatment in detention (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 113‑16, 28 March 2006).
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 13.
Article 41 ■ EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
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, the European Commission or the Robert Carr Fund. The European Union, the European Commission and the Robert Carr Fund cannot be held responsible for them.
