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
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.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
MAGLEVANNAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 13002/10 and 9 others ■ Third Section Committee ■ 15 May 2025
Art 10 ■ Freedom of expression ■ Torture and ill-treatment in prison ■ Issues of general interest ■ Libel and defamation
Facts ■ The 12 applicants (journalists, activists, human rights defenders and NGOs, entrepreneurs) made various online and offline publications, as well as public statements and official complaints pertaining to the abuse of authority by public officials and government institutions, including cases of torture, unlawful arrests, corruption, suppression of local culture and heritage, appropriation of businesses, and incompetence. All of them faced various repercussions, such as abusive defamation proceedings in which they were ordered to pay damages and publish retractions, as well as to take down their publications, criminal charges and fines, as well as banning of their articles.
The first applicant, Elena Maglevannaya, was a journalist from Volgograd who had extensively reported on systemic torture and abuse of ethnic Chechens in Russian prisons. The case concerned specifically the case of a Chechen prisoner who suffered torture. Her article relied on statements made by the concerned prisoner’s relative and lawyer, as well as by a prison doctor. Following a defamation dispute filed by the prison administration, the applicant was ordered to pay RUB 200,000 (approximately EUR 4,500 at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damages and to publish a retraction.
Law ■ Article 10
General principles: Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, 8 October 2015, § 25; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 50, 24 April 2007; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011; Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 34, 14 October 2008; Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 44, 8 October 2009; Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46‑48, 13 December 2016.
All cases were examined by the Court in a summary fashion, without detailed analysis of the facts.
With regards to the first applicant, the Court considered in particular that it has not been demonstrated that the domestic courts “performed a balancing exercise between the need to protect the prison’s reputation and the applicant’s right to impart information on issues of general interest such as ill‑treatment in prisons” (table, row 1, on the recognition of the use of torture in prison as an issue of public interest, see also Dianova and Others v. Russia, no. 21286/15 and four others, 10 September 2024, in which the Court held that the domestic courts had not addressed “the public interest aspect of [the applicant’s] actions, namely her efforts to draw attention to the use of torture in Russian penal facilities, while such questions of public interest enjoy privileged protection under the Convention”, § 72).
The Court also noted that the domestic courts failed to consider that “the ‘dignity’ of an institution cannot be equated to that of human beings” and to “advance any justification for punishment of the applicant for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by other persons, although they were required to give particularly strong reasons for doing so” (table, row 1).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 10.
Article 41 ■ EUR 10,000 for each of the applicants.
KALKAN v. DENMARK ■ Application no. 51781/22 ■ Fourth Section ■ 27 May 2025
Art 2 (substantive) ■ Death of applicant’s son in prison after being restrained in a prone position leg lock for about thirteen minutes, following which he suffered a heart attack ■ Domestic authorities’ failure to transmit to the prison authorities known updated information on the additional risks associated with the prone position or review and update their instructions and training until after the incident ■ Failure, at the relevant time, to issue clear and adequate instructions for prison guards and to train them on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners ■ As a result, prison officers involved in the present case lacked the high level of competence required when dealing with a risk-to-life situation
Facts ■ At the relevant time, the applicant’s son was serving a prison sentence for robbery and making threats against prison staff during a previous term of imprisonment. In January 2011, the applicant’s son was found to be “agitated” (§ 9). The prison administration decided to move him temporarily to an observation cell “to avoid his harming himself by pounding his head, legs and/or arms against the wall, and for the sake of maintaining order in the prison” and to transfer him to another prison more suitable for his current state.
The applicant’s son was placed in a prone position leg lock and handcuffed, after he “kicked out and hit one of the prison officers in the chest” (§ 12). He was maintained in this position for a total of 13 minutes until the arrival of police officers called to support in his transfer to a different facility. After the prison officers released the leg lock, it appeared that the applicant’s pulse could not be felt. After having received first aid, he was transferred to a hospital where he died without having regained consciousness. The exact cause of the death could not be determined with certainty, but was probably due to “an acute stress response”, as well as an “excited delirium syndrome” (§§ 13-15) which had increased his oxygen demand while his breathing had been impeded.
In April 2013, the Prosecution Division for Special Cases of the South Jutland Police decided to discontinue the investigation as “it could not reasonably be thought that a criminal offence had been committed” (§ 20).
In April 2015, a High Court judge acting in the capacity of Substitute Ombudsman concluded that “the use of force applied by the prison officers had not been contrary to the directions that were (then) in force, nor had the use of force exceeded the extent necessary” (§ 22).
The compensation proceedings lodged by the applicant were rejected by the competent courts in July 2022. In particular, the City Court found that there was “no basis for finding that the directions for use of the prone position leg lock and other restraints that were in force at the time were inadequate or did not sufficiently take into account the risks associated with the use of the hold” (quoted in § 28).
Law ■ Article 2
General principles: Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, 20 December 2004; Tekin and Arslan v. Belgium, no. 37795/13, § 84, 5 September 2017; Machalikashvili and Others v. Georgia, no. 32245/19, § 99, 19 January 2023.
The The Court stressed that the issue it had to consider is whether at the material time (January 2011) “the Danish authorities had given prison guards clear and adequate instructions on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners, and if so whether the prison guards in this case followed those instructions in practice” (§ 97).
With regards to prison staff training, the Court agreed with the domestic courts’ finding that prison officers were informed on the risks associated with the use of the prone position leg lock. However, it observed that “there seemed to [have been] a prevailing understanding by the prison authorities at the time that there were no risks associated with the use of the prone position as long as there was no pressure against the back” (§ 102). The Court noted that after the death of the applicant’s son, the Department of Prisons and Probation issued guidance saying that “the prone position leg lock must not involve any application of pressure to the chest or abdomen and that as soon as they have been pacified and handcuffed, inmates must be placed in a position that allows them to breathe freely” (§ 103).
With regards to the available information on the risks posed by the use of the prone position leg lock at the material time, the Court noted that before the 2011, “several countries and institutions had updated their training information about the risks associated with the use of the prone position” (§ 106) and reminded that in its previous case law it had already stated that “the prone position restraint constituted a technique which was ‘highly dangerous to life’” (§ 107, quoting Saoud v. France, no. 9375/02, 9 October 2007; it also mentioned internal developments in the United Kingdom and Norway).
The Court also mentioned CPT reports on Denmark regarding the use of the prone position leg lock, following which “various authorities, notably the Danish police, had followed the experiences, developments and risks associated with the hold techniques known at the time” (§ 113).
This enables the Court to conclude that although “the police, became aware around 2007 or 2008 that the risks associated with the […] prone position leg lock” namely that “holding someone in a prone position if that person was agitated or physically restrained, increased the risk of positional asphyxiation”, the prison administration did not make use of this information – either because “this information was not transmitted to prison authorities, or [because] it did not prompt them to review and update their instructions and training until 2012, after the incident giving rise the present case” (§ 117).
Consequently, they found that at the material time, the authorities “had failed to issue clear and adequate instructions for prison guards on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners” (§ 119).
Turning to the circumstances of the case, the Court noted that “if the prison officers had been trained according to those updated instructions when they were restraining [the applicant’s son…], and if they had been aware of the risks previously identified by Danish medical experts and communicated to the Danish police in 2007 […], they would have had alternatives to keeping [him] in the prone position for about thirteen minutes.” (§ 128). Updated instructions might not have prevented the applicant’s son’s death, but “would at least have ensured that the prison officers had the high level of competence required” (idem).
In view of the above, the Court concluded that “the Danish authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to give prison guards clear and adequate instructions on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners, and similarly failed to train their law-enforcement officials, and that consequently the prison officers involved in the present case lacked the high level of competence required when dealing with a situation that presented a risk to life” (§ 129).
Conclusion ■ Violation of article 2 (substantive)
Article 41 ■ EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 6,000 in respect of cost and expenses.
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.
