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
IMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN ■ Application no. 62/20
Disbarment of a lawyer for statements made to the press regarding the ill-treatment of his client by prison staff; ill-treatment of prisoners considered a matter of public interest; observed pattern of repressive measures targeting government critics, civil society activists, journalists, and human rights defenders: violation of Article 10, violation of Article 8, non-examination of the complaint under Article 18 (joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Ktistakis and Pavli).
CREA v. ITALY ■ Application no. 7003/22
Continued detention of a prisoner with a disability, requiring constant assistance and a programme of rehabilitation and physiotherapy; Government unable to demonstrate that regular physiotherapy and rehabilitative care were provided: violation of Article 3.
PLATON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ■ Application no. 74995/17
Insufficient medical assistance provided to a former political figure held in remand detention (toothache, kidney pain) and lack of effective remedy: violation of Article 3, violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.
Regular application of sanctions suspending family visits, resulting in a permanent prohibition on such visits for over two years; restriction not imposed as a consequence of a disciplinary infraction directly related to prison visits: violation of Article 8.
Permanent presence of a special prison detachment wearing black uniforms and balaclavas in front of the applicant’s cell door: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
İMRAK AND YILDIZ v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 19815/19
Injuries sustained by prisoners following use of force by prison guards in the context of resistance to a search and headcount in a prison unit; lack of timely medical examination; lack of effective investigation: violation of Article 3 (procedural limb).
URUSBIEV AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 33519/15 and 4 others
Inadequate detention conditions in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (MRT): violation of Article 3 by Russia.
Detention ordered by de facto “MRT courts” not reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention: violation of Article 5 § 1 by Russia.
Lack of effective remedy in respect of complaints under Articles 3 and 5: violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 by Russia.
Audio- and video-surveillance of applicant’s meetings with his lawyer while in prison: violation of Article 8 by Russia.
Applicant deprived of any pen and paper while in prison and subjected to correspondence censorship: violation of Article 34 by Russia.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Bulgaria | Blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ right to vote in legislative elections (Shasov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 3812/22, 9 October 2025; Memishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 49554/21, 9 October 2025; Kalaydzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 49951/21, 9 October 2025; Sakaliev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 16355/22, 23 October 2025; Rangelov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 49395/21, 23 October 2025; Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 62531/19, 23 October 2025): violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
Ukraine | Lack of adequate medical treatment provided to prisoners with health conditions – HIV, chronic hepatitis C, hypertension, cirrhosis, cerebral atherosclerosis, serious cardiovascular diseases (Monakhov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36729/23, 9 October 2025): violation of Article 3.
Ukraine | Appellate court reduced tenfold (from EUR 32 to EUR 3) the compensation awarded to a prisoner for a letter unlawfully opened by the prison administration, and ordered him to pay the EUR 33 court fees incurred by the prison administration on appeal, despite him being a life-sentenced prisoner without income (Korol and Others v. Ukraine, no. 82560/17, 9 October 2025): violation of Article 6 § 1.
Russia | Permanent video surveillance of prisoners in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities, including by opposite-sex operators (Komornikov and Maksimova v. Russia, no. 64339/19, 16 October 2025): violation of Article 8.
Ukraine | Life-sentenced prisoners deprived of clear and realistic prospects of early release until 3 March 2023 reform (Petedzhyyev and Bondar v. Ukraine, no. 60318/21, 23 October 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.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
IMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN ■ Application no. 62/20 ■ Third Section ■ 7 October 2025
Art 10 ■ Freedom of expression ■ Disproportionate disbarment of a lawyer on account of statements made to the press about the alleged ill-treatment of his client in prison ■ Statements directly targeted the prison staff ■ Statements concerning a matter of public interest and not a priori baseless or devoid of any substance ■ Impugned sanction capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel.
Art 8 ■ Article applicable as working situation has an impact on the applicant’s social life ■ Applicant’s disbarment not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and constituted a disproportionate sanction ■ Identified pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists, journalists and human rights defender.
Facts ■ At the material time, the applicant was a human rights lawyer having represented numerous applicants before the Court, and a member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA).
On 8 August 2017, during a meeting with his client at Gobustan Prison, he was informed that his client had been tortured by prison officers, and he noticed signs of ill-treatment on his client’s body. On the same day, the applicant informed journalists about his client’s state of health and allegations of torture. Various media outlets subsequently published this information, including the name of prison staff who had allegedly tortured the applicant’s client. On the following day, gatherings were held in front of the prison and the administrative building of the Prison Service in protest against the ill-treatment allegedly endured by the applicant’s client.
On 9 August 2017, he filed several complaints about his client’s alleged ill-treatment in prison.
On 10 August 2017, the head of the Prison Service sent a letter to the ABA in which he asked that disciplinary proceedings be launched against the applicant, on the grounds that he “had made defamatory and false statements to the press accusing the Prison Service of subjecting [his client] to ill‑treatment and that his statements had given rise to the unlawful gathering organised by [his client’s] relatives in front of the administrative building of the Prison Service situated in Baku” (§ 17).
On 9 September 2017, the ABA Disciplinary Commission issued an opinion in which it held that the applicant had breached lawyers’ ethics since, although he had lodged complaints about his client’s alleged ill-treatment, “he had made unsubstantiated statements to the press […] relying only on [his client’s] statements and his own assessment, without waiting for the outcome of his complaints” (§ 18). The Disciplinary Commission also held that the applicant’s statements to the press had “damaged the honour and reputation of the prison staff and breached their right to the presumption of innocence” (§ 18). The Disciplinary Commission referred the case to the Presidium of the ABA, who decided on 20 November 2017 to refer the applicant’s case to a court with a view to his disbarment and to suspend his activity as a lawyer pending a judicial decision.
On 22 February 2018, the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court ordered the applicant’s disbarment, on the grounds that he had “shared information about the alleged ill-treatment of his client in prison without having any evidence as to the reliability of the information in question” (§ 21), asserted by a court decision. In doing so, it breached the principle of the presumption of innocence, “failed to respect the reputation and the rights of others and had caused unwarranted anxiety among the relatives and family members of persons detained in prison” (ibid.). The applicant’s appeal and cassation appeal were rejected in May 2019 and October 2019 respectively.
Law ■ Article 10
General principles: Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-39, 23 April 2015; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45; Peruzzi v. Italy, no. 39294/09, § 50, 30 June 2015; and Rogalski v. Poland, no. 5420/16, § 39, 23 March 2023.
It was undisputed by the parties that the applicant’s disbarment constituted an infringement on the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. The Court noted that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.
However, the Court considered that the sanction imposed had been disproportionate and therefore that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society.
The Court rejected the Government’s submission that, by making public statements, the applicant attempted to exert pressure on the judiciary. The Court reiterated “the possibility of reporting alleged irregularities and making complaints against public officials takes on added importance in the case of persons under the control of the authorities, such as prisoners” (§ 45, referring to Shahanov and Palfreeman, cited above, nos. 35365/12 and 69125/12, § 64, 21 July 2016). It added that it was the duty of the applicant, “in his capacity as a lawyer, to protect the interests of his client by using all the means provided for by the law” (ibid.).
Turning to the sanction of disbarment, the Court noted that the domestic court having ordered the applicant’s disbarment “did not give any consideration to the fact that the statements in question concerned the alleged ill-treatment of a prisoner in prison, which is without any doubt a matter of public interest” (§ 47). The Court reminded that, where remarks concern a matter of public interest, individuals are granted a high level of protection of their freedom of expression, while State authorities enjoy a “particularly narrow margin of appreciation” (ibid, referring to Morice, § 125). Moreover, the Court added that the prison staff mentioned by the applicant had not pursued any legal action against their alleged defamation.
The Court also held that the applicant’s statements on his client’s ill-treatment “could not be a priori considered to be baseless or devoid of any substance” (§ 48) in view of the signs of ill-treatment the applicant’s client had on his body. The Court also reminded that, in a separate case concerning these allegations of ill-treatment, the Government had made a unilateral declaration acknowledging a violation of the applicant’s client’s rights (the application was eventually restored to the list of cases and is currently pending before the Court, see no. 84594/17).
Lastly, the Court considered that the domestic courts failed to justify the choice of the sanction of disbarment “which can only be regarded as a harsh sanction, capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel” (§ 49).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 10.
Law ■ Article 8
(1) Admissibility
The Court held that Article 8 was applicable to the present case, arguing that it is “in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant opportunity to develop relationships with the outside world” (§ 53). In particular, it observed that the applicant’s disbarment, caused him a considerable loss of earnings, “affected a wide range of his professional and other relationships and encroached upon his professional and social reputation” (ibid.).
(2) Merits
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the applicant’s disbarment amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life. It also accepted that the interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of “‘the prevention of disorder’ […], since it concern[ed] the regulation of the legal profession which participates in the good administration of justice” (§ 63).
However, in view of its conclusion under Article 10, namely that the sanction imposed on the applicant was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, the Court found that the sanction also constituted a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 8. In particular, referring to Recommendation R (2000) 21 on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer and the annual report (A/71/348) of the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Court considered that “the domestic courts failed to sufficiently assess the proportionality of the interference, keeping in mind that the disbarment sanction constituted the harshest disciplinary sanction in the legal profession, having irreversible consequences on the professional life of a lawyer” (§ 67).
The Court considered that its analysis that the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of the applicant’s disbarment were not relevant and sufficient is further reinforced by the identification of “a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists, journalists and human rights defenders” (§ 69).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Law ■ Article 18 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Having regard to the conclusions reached under Articles 10 and 8, the Court considered that there was no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits under Article 18 (in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 41 ■ EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ktistakis and Pavli ■ Judges Ktistakis and Pavli disagreed with the Court on two points: first they considered that the interference with the applicant’s rights did not pursue a legitimate aim, and they considered that there had been a violation of Article 18.
Judges Ktistakis and Pavli disagreed with the majority, who considered that the applicant’s disbarment had pursued the legitimate aim of “protecting the reputation and rights of the prison officers” (Article 10) and of “prevention of disorder” (Article 8). They disagreed with the ABA’s premise that the applicant had committed grave ethical breaches. First they argued that “making strong allegations is not per se unethical or contrary to Article 10” (§ 4 of the Partly Dissenting Opinion) but depends on the evidence supporting these allegations. They also recalled that the “ability to name (suspected) abusers has historically been an important measure of accountability, sometimes years or even decades after the fact” (§ 5 PDO). Lastly, mentioning the Government’s unilateral declaration acknowledging a violation of the applicant’s client’s rights in a separate case concerning ill-treatment committed by state officers, Judges Ktistakis and Pavli argued that “there is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the applicant’s statements at the time were reckless, malicious or otherwise such as to amount to a serious breach of professional ethics” (§ 6 PDO).
Consequently, Judges Ktistakis and Pavli argued that the applicant’s disbarment did not pursue a legitimate aim but was “motivated solely by ‘ulterior motives’” (§ 7 PDO).
For this reason, Judges Ktistakis and Pavli consider that the Court should have examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 18 that his rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. Consistently with the conclusion that the disbarment had not pursed a legitimate aim, Judges Ktistakis and Pavli consider that “the assumption that the authorities had acted in good faith is consequently undermined” (§ 9 PDO). This analysis is reinforced by the disproportionate nature of the sanction, and by the “clear pattern of misuse of disciplinary powers by the ABA as a means of suppressing dissent within the profession” (§ 14 PDO). Judges Ktistakis and Pavli argued that the Court should have found a violation of Article 18 in the present case, in view of the status of the applicant, the sanction imposed on him, and the chilling effect it could have. They regretted that the majority chose not to engage with complaint under Article 18, “an innovative provision designed to safeguard against some of the most blatant anti-democratic tendencies among the States Parties” (§ 18 PDO).
CREA v. ITALY ■ Application no. 7003/22 ■ First Section Committee ■ 9 October 2025
Art 3 ■ Continued detention of prisoner requiring constant assistance and a programme of rehabilitation and physiotherapy ■ No evidence of provision of regular physiotherapy and rehabilitative care.
Facts ■ The applicant was incarcerated in 2014 in Parma prison following his conviction for mafia-related crimes. He suffers from multiple health conditions, including hemiplegia, and requires the use of a wheelchair.
Several medical expert reports assessing whether his health was compatible with continued detention highlighted that he required physiotherapy, pharmacological treatment, and assistance with daily activities. Following reports drawn up in 2014 and 2015, stressing that Parma prison was not adapted for prisoners with disabilities, the applicant was transferred from Parma Prison to Opera Prison in Milan, where he was placed in a specialised unit (Servizio Assistenza Intensiva).
Subsequent reports drawn up following his transfer stressed that the applicant could remain in detention, provided he received constant assistance from staff and a programme of rehabilitation and physiotherapy was maintained. They emphasised that if it was impossible to find a prison meeting these requirements, the best alternative for preserving the applicant’s physical health and ensuring he received the necessary care was to transfer him to a healthcare facility offering appropriate support and rehabilitative services.
Between 2015 and 2023, the applicant repeatedly requested that his detention be substituted with home arrest. These requests were consistently denied. The Court rejected his request for interim measures in February 2022.
The applicant complained that his continued detention in spite of his state of health was contrary to Article 3.
Law ■ Article 3
General principles: Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-148, 31 January 2019 ; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, §§ 102-103, 12 March 2013 ; Helhal v. France, no. 10401/12, §§ 49-52, 19 February 2015 ; Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, §§ 61-65, 2 June 2020.
The Court declared from the outset that the applicant’s continued detention was not inherently incompatible with Article 3. Its reasoning relied on several expert reports indicating that the applicant could benefit from adequate care in a prison setting.
However, the Court found that the treatment provided to the applicant in prison was insufficient, and therefore the authorities had failed to preserve his physical integrity. The Court noted that, although evidence of the treatment and assistance provided to the applicant was submitted, the Government could not produce documents showing that he had received regular physiotherapy and rehabilitative care before the COVID-19 pandemic, nor that he had been able to resume this specialised treatment after COVID-19–related restrictions were removed.
In particular, the Court noted that the applicant received only occasional physiotherapy sessions following his transfer in 2016 to Opera Prison in Milan (i.e., two years after his initial incarceration in Parma Prison), and that nothing in the case file indicated that his physiotherapy resumed after 2019, despite repeated prescriptions by both experts appointed by the judicial authorities and by prison doctors.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3.
Article 41 ■ No claim.
PLATON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ■ Application no. 74995/17 ■ Fifth Section ■ 9 October 2025
Art 3 (substantive) ■ Art 13 (+ Art 3) ■ Insufficient medical assistance to a former member of a municipal council and of Parliament while in detention ■ Lack of effective remedy.
Art 8 ■ Family life ■ Regular application of sanctions on applicant suspending family visits resulted in a virtually permanent prohibition on such visits for over two years ■ Restriction not imposed as a consequence of a disciplinary infraction directly pertaining to the exercise of the right to receive visitors ■ Cumulative effect of prohibition’s renewal did not reflect the seriousness of sanctioned behaviour.
Facts ■ The applicant is a former member of the Chișinău municipal council (1999-2003) and member of Parliament (2009-2010). In 2014 he was charged with fraud and money laundering and was detained pending trial in prison no. 13 in Chișinău between August 2016 and June 2020. During his detention, the applicant was guarded by members of the “Pantera” special destination detachment, who always wore black uniforms and black balaclavas and stood by his cell door 24 hours a day.
The applicant complained about inadequate medical treatment. In particular, he informed the prison administration several times of kidney pain (in December 2016, March 2017 and May 2017). The administration replied that the prison doctors had considered an external consultation to be unnecessary and that if medical treatment was ever in fact required, he could be transferred to a specialised medical institution. The applicant’s complaints were rejected by domestic courts. The applicant also specifically complained about the fact that members of the “Pantera” detachment failed to forward to a doctor his complaints about acute pain in the kidneys between 24 and 26 February 2017. The prosecutor refused to start a criminal investigation into that allegation and the applicant’s attempt to challenge this decision was rejected by domestic courts.
The applicant also complained about inadequate dental treatment following a request in June 2017 (the prison dentist confirmed that he had not had the required equipment to treat the applicant’s illness). Domestic courts allowed the applicant to be treated in private dental clinics but none of the two clinics contacted agreed to treat the applicant. The applicant’s toothache was treated in October 2018.
Finally, the applicant complained about restrictions on family visits. As a result of sanctions applied to him, he was unable to see any of his relatives for over two years while he was in prison. The applicant complained before domestic courts that some of the sanctions imposed were based on unconfirmed statements and reports made by the prison staff. The applicant’s attempts to challenge before domestic courts the sanctions imposed were unsuccessful.
Law ■ Article 3 and Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3
(1) Admissibility
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with regards to the “Pantera” detachment members’ failure to forward his complaints about kidney pain to a doctor. The Court noted that the applicant’s complaints about his inadequate medical treatment were examined and rejected by domestic courts.
The Court recalled in this respect that “the application under examination does not concern the individual responsibility of certain prison staff but, above all, compliance with State duties under Article 3 of the Convention to ensure medical assistance in detention” (§ 23). Therefore, the applicant could not be required to seek punishment for prison staff members in addition to complaining about failure to provide adequate medical treatment.
(2) Merits
General principles: Rooman v. Belgium ([GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-148, 31 January 2019; Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 43-44, 11 December 2012.
Concerning the applicant’s toothache, the Court noted that although the applicant complained about such pain as early as June 2017, he was not provided with treatment until October 2018. It was undisputed that the prison was not properly equipped to treat the applicant’s toothache, and the Government did not argue that the treatment required by the applicant “was generally unavailable in the Republic of Moldova or that there were particular difficulties in securing it” (§ 30). In this context, the Court concluded that although “the authorities were aware of the impossibility of offering the applicant the requisite dental treatment within the prison [they] did not do enough to arrange for such treatment, either by bringing in the necessary equipment or finding alternative solutions outside the prison” (ibid).
Concerning the applicant’s kidney pain, the Court noted that the Government did not submit evidence either that the applicant had been examined by a prison doctor, or that he had refused treatment – although there was a practice of recording refusals of treatment in prisoners’ medical file. The Court also stressed that “the applicant was isolated and unable to see any doctors other than those in the prison, which means that it was impossible for him to obtain any evidence that he suffered pain other than submitting complaints and obtaining replies” (§ 32). In this context, the Court noted that the case file contains three complaints filed by the applicant about his kidney pain. It could therefore establish that “the applicant’s complaints of severe pain in his kidneys – which undoubtedly could potentially require medical attention if confirmed by medical professionals – were ignored in a manner incompatible with the State duty to secure necessary medical care in prison” (§ 33).
Concerning the alleged lack of effective remedy, the Court recalled that it had already found a violation of Article 13 with respect to the lack of effective remedies for insufficient medical assistance in detention in a previous case (Machina v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 69086/14, §§ 56 and 57, 17 January 2023) and considered that it was unable to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3 and Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3.
Law ■ Article 8
(1) Admissibility
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies since a complaint filed by him against the forgery of official documents by members of the “Pantera” detachment, having resulted in visits restrictions, was still pending. The Court noted that the applicant had brought the issue complained of to the attention of the relevant authorities and that the individual responsibility of officers was irrelevant to the issue at stake.
The Court also rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies since the suspension of the applicant’s right to meet his relatives, by a decision dated 8 August 2017, was still being examined by the courts. The Court observed that the Government failed to raise this objection in their initial observations and therefore concluded that they were estopped from relying on this ground.
(2) Merits
General principles: Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC] (no. 41418/04, §§ 106 and 116-126, ECHR 2015; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, § 23, 18 February 2020.
The Court observed that the limitation on the applicant’s visits constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8, that the interference was provided for by law, and pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of disorder in prison.
However, the Court considered that the interference was disproportionate to the aim pursued. First, the Court noted that the disciplinary infractions having led to a restriction on visits were not related to the right to receive visitors. Second, the Court observed that the 3-month restrictions on visits were imposed in a “periodic manner” every three months, resulting “in a virtually permanent prohibition on family meetings for more than two years” (§ 46). The Court found that the prison authorities taking the decision to suspend visits and the courts reviewing these decisions “did not take into account the cumulative effect of such sanctions and whether, with the passage of time, the lack of contact between the applicant and his relatives had continued to be proportionate” (ibid). The Court also noted that the domestic courts did not examine with sufficient attention the applicant’s allegations about the “Pantera” detachment provoking him to break prison rules to impose a new sanction. Lastly, the Court noted that, while the applicant was not under a sanction between 28 May 2017 and 15 June 2017, his requests to have a meeting with his wife were rejected, despite the absence of any impediment (§ 47).
In conclusion, the Court considered that “the cumulative effect of the renewal of the prohibition on family visits for over two years does not reflect the seriousness of the behaviour for which the applicant was sanctioned” (§ 47), rendering the measure disproportionate to the aim pursued.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8.
Law ■ Article 3 and Article 8
The applicant specifically complained under Article 3 and Article 8 about the presence of the “Pantera” detachment at his cell door, arguing that they had played a central role in the failure to provide him with adequate medical care (by not forwarding his request for medical assistance) and in his deprivation of prison visits (by provoking him and drafting falsified reports leading to additional sanctions).
The Court considered that there was “no doubt that the allegations raised by the applicant regarding the role of the ‘Pantera’ detachment could raise an issue under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention” (§ 51). However, it declared that it had examined the manner in which the applicant has been treated by that detachment in other parts of the application (regarding specifically his medical treatment in prison and his denial of family visits).
The Court also did not examine the claim that the “Pantera” detachment’s presence on a continuous basis had been unlawful. Although it considered the regulation governing the functioning of the detachment “relatively vague” (§ 52), it noted that the applicant could not demonstrate that he had complained before domestic courts about the permanent presence of this detachment. The Court therefore rejected this part of the complaint as inadmissible.
Conclusion ■ Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 41 ■ EUR 15,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
İMRAK AND YILDIZ v. TÜRKİYE ■ Application no. 19815/19 ■ Second Section Committee ■ 14 October 2025
Art 3 ■ Ill-treatment ■ Allegations of disproportionate use of force by prison guards ■ Lack of appropriate medical examination ■ Absence of effective investigation.
Facts ■ The two applicants were detained in Antalya L-Type Prison’s F-2 Unit, with 23 other detainees. On 5 August 2016, prison guards used force following prisoners’ attempt to obstruct a search and headcount, injuring at least three of them. A medical examination carried out on four prisoners noted several bruises treated by simple medical care. Other detainees, including the applicants, were not taken for a medical examination. On the same day, relatives of seven of the applicants’ co-detainees submitted a complaint to the public prosecutor after they noticed injuries on their imprisoned relatives’ bodies during a visit. It was noted that one prisoner had been brought to the visit on a stretcher, another had been unable to stand, and one had been assisted by others. The prisoners explained that two guards had struck them with batons and forced them to lie on the ground.
On 5 August 2026, a preliminary investigation into the matter was initiated, and the vice-director of the prison was assigned as investigator. She heard statements from nine prison guards and examined the video footage analysis prepared by a prison guard. On 17 August, the vice-director, in her capacity as investigator, advised the prison administration not to initiate proceedings against the prison guards, on the grounds that the use of force had been proportionate to the resistance put up by the prisoners.
In parallel, the applicants and other detainees submitted individual letters to the prison administration, arguing that they had been assaulted by prison guards and were not taken for a medical examination despite their requests to that effect (on 9 August 2016). The applicants also submitted, through their lawyer, a complaint to the public prosecutor, arguing that they had been subjected to ill treatment (on 12 August 2016). Their lawyer also submitted that they had noticed signs of injuries on the applicant during a visit and that the applicant had not been taken for a medical examination despite multiple requests.
The public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. On 5 December 2016, the prosecutor noted that the prison administration was unable to send him the medical reports of all detainees concerned in the incident, but only for four of them. A few days later, the prosecutor heard from the prison director and the prisoner representative of the unit where the incident took place. Following his interview with the prisoner, he ordered that additional medical examinations be carried out on prisoners who had been assaulted, according to the prisoner interviewed. On 20 February 2017, the prosecutor closed the investigation with a decision not to prosecute any prison officials. He considered that the use of force had been proportionate to the prisoners’ resistance to the search and headcount, and that there was no evidence of the prison director’s lack of diligence in obtaining medical reports.
The applicants’ complaints before the domestic courts were rejected. In particular, on 24 September 2018, the Constitutional Court declared their complaint inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
Law ■ Article 3
(1) Admissibility
The Court rejected the Government’s objection that the applicants had not exhausted available domestic remedies as they should have submitted a complaint before the enforcement judge regarding the prison administration’s alleged refusal of their request for a medical examination. The Court noted on the one hand that the enforcement judges do not have the duty and authority to investigate allegations of ill-treatment in prisons, and on the second hand that this aspect of the complaint related “to the thoroughness of the criminal investigation […] undertaken by the public prosecutor following the applicants’ criminal complaint, and cannot be considered as a separate issue that the applicants needed to litigate” (§ 119).
(2) Merits
General Principles: Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, 28 September 2015; X and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/16, §§ 184‑190, 2 February 2021; Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 66, 18 June 2015; Daşlık v. Turkey, no. 38305/07, § 52, 13 June 2017; Hovhannisyan v. Armenia, no. 18419/13, § 60, 19 July 2018; Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 52, 2 October 2012.
The Court considered that the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment were sufficiently substantiated (containing the date, place, nature of ill-treatment as well as the identity of the perpetrators) to constitute an “arguable claim” that the authorities were under the obligation to investigate.
The Court considered that the investigation carried out had not been sufficiently thorough. First, it noted that the public prosecutor only took a statement from the prison director, who had not been present during the incident, without questioning the prison guards involved, the detainees and their relatives and representatives.
Second, the Court observed that while the public prosecutor instructed the prison authorities to obtain medical reports for all detainees concerned and initiated an investigation, it failed to ensure that this instruction was complied with. The Court added that “a list prepared by the representative of the prison unit of the persons who had been assaulted could [not…] absolve the authorities from providing for the applicants’ medical examinations in order to sufficiently establish the facts of the case” (§ 28). The Court reiterated that the drawing up of medical records are a “crucial aspect” of investigations into ill-treatment and that the failure of the authorities to establish medical reports “constituted a serious shortcoming capable of undermining the reliability and effectiveness of the investigation” (§ 29).
Third, the Court noted that the public prosecutor “relied heavily on the preliminary disciplinary investigation conducted by the vice-director of the prison […], which casts doubts on the independence of the criminal investigation” (§ 30). The Court also noted that the disciplinary investigation had had some shortcomings as the video footage analysis, prepared by a prison guard, “lacked sufficiently precise information as to how the incident had unfolded” (ibid.). The Court therefore concluded that the investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment had been ineffective.
As regards the substantive aspect of the complaint, the Court considered that although the applicant’s allegations constituted an arguable claim, due to the authorities’ failure to properly investigate the incident, “there is no evidence in the case file demonstrating that they sustained any injuries during the incident” (§ 33). The Court considered that there had been no violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3 (procedural limb).
Article 41 ■ EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
URUSBIEV AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA ■ Applications nos. 33519/15 and 4 others ■ Fifth Section Committee ■ 23 October 2025
Art 3 ■ Inadequate detention conditions in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (MRT).
Art 5 § 1 ■ Detention not ordered by a court but by de facto “MRT courts” not reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention.
Art 13 ■ Lack of effective remedy in respect of complaints under Articles 3 and 5.
Art 8 ■ Audio- and video‑surveillance of meetings with their lawyers while in prison.
Art 34 ■ Applicant deprived of the possibility to draft letters on his own and without censorship ■ Applicant’s right of application hindered.
Facts ■ The 6 applicants were detained in various detention facilities in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (MRT) for periods of time ranging from several days to over three years.
They complained about poor detention conditions (in facilities infested with parasites, unsanitary, humid, overcrowded, lacking access to ventilation, daylight, without a sufficient supply of food and drinking water) and the fact that they had been deprived of medical assistance.
They also argued that their detention had been unlawful as having not been ordered by a court but by de facto “MRT courts”.
One of the applicants also complained about to the audio- and video‑surveillance of meetings with their lawyers while in prison.
Law ■ Continued examination of application no. 862/16
The Court noted that in May 2025, the legal representative of the applicant in application no. 862/16 informed the Court that he had lost contact with the applicant and his wife, despite several attempts to contact them. The Court explained that while in some similar cases, it interpreted the impossibility to contact the applicant as an indication that they no longer wished to pursue the application, and accordingly struck the application out of the list, in the present case it accepted the applicant’s representative’s explanation that that the applicant’s lack of contact could be the result of his fear of criminal prosecution under the “MRT Criminal Code” for lodging a complaint with the Court.
Even if the applicant no longer wished to pursue the application, the Court considered that the circumstances of the case would require it to continue the examination of the application. Even though the Court has already developed well-established case law on the legal issues raised, it considered the subject matter (i.e., detention in the unrecognised region of Transnistria in the Republic of Moldova under the orders of unrecognised de facto courts and allegations under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention) to be of particular importance.
Law ■ Articles 3 and 5 § 1
(1) Article 3
General principles: Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 180-182, 23 February 2016; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, §§ 11‑35, 9 May 2017; Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 55-56, 20 February 2024.
The Court recalled it had already found that the material conditions of detention in the “MRT” police stations and prisons were inadequate at the time of the events. It noted that the applicants’ submissions were consistent with those findings and saw no reason to depart from this conclusion and found it is unnecessary to examine separately the complaint concerning the lack of medical assistance in detention.
(2) Article 5 § 1
The Court recalled that it had established in its previous case law that at the material time, “the judicial system of the [MRT] was not a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention, and that detention orders issued by de facto “MRT courts” could not be considered lawful within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention” (§ 30, referring to Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, § 129). It found no reason to depart from this conclusion.
(3) States responsibility under the Convention
Referring to its previous case law, the Court found that Moldova fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. Conversely, the Court recalled that it had already established that “Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period of the applicants’ detention” (§ 32) and saw no reason to depart from this conclusion. It concluded that Russia’s responsibility under the Convention was engaged as regards the violation of the applicants’ rights under the relevant provisions (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, §§ 117 and 132).
Conclusion ■ Violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 by Russia.
Law ■ Article 34
The first applicant in application no. 40836/15 alleged that the MRT authorities had hindered the effective exercise of his right of application under Article 34. The Court noted that the applicant complained under Article 8 about the audio- and video-recordings of his meetings with his lawyer, that he had been prevented from writing any letters by himself as he had been deprived of any pen and paper, and that his correspondence would have been subjected to censorship if he had written letters on his own. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant’s right of application had been hindered.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 34 by Russia.
Law ■ Other violations
Without detailed analysis, in respect of the first applicant in application no. 40836/15, the Court also found there had been a violation of Article 8 with regard to the audio- and video‑surveillance of meetings with his lawyer while in prison.
The Court also found that the applicant having alleged a violation of Article 3 and 5 had been deprived of an effective remedy, in breach of Article 13.
Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 8 by Russia; violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 by Russia.
Article 41 ■ Between EUR 26,000 and 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; between EUR 3,600 and 3,500 in respect of costs 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.
