This compilation gathers the most important judgments and decisions on prison issues handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By reporting on the main trends in European prison case law, it aims to support legal practitioners in the prison field in their research and litigation, as well as to identify blind spots in the European case law to build strategic litigation avenues.
CONTENTs >> OCTOBER 2025 / NOVEMBER 2025
OCTOBER 2025
READ THE FULL VERSION >>
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.
NOVEMBER 2025
READ THE FULL VERSION >>
European Court of Human Rights
VAINIK AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA ■ Applications nos. 17982/21 and 3 others
Introduction of a total ban on smoking in prisons; no consensus among member States on the need to ban smoking in prison settings; ban not subject to parliamentary review and debate; no assessment of the impact of the ban from the perspective of smoking prisoners’ personal autonomy, understood as encompassing the possibility to make choices about one’s own life and health: violation of Article 8 (concurring opinions of Judge Zünd and Judge Arnardóttir, joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Roosma and Ní Raifeartaigh, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Pavli, statement of partial dissent of Judge Serghides).
M.A. v. LATVIA ■ Application no. 55234/21
Detention of a mentally ill person in ordinary prison facilities despite a court order for her placement in a general psychiatric hospital: violation of Article 5 § 1 (e).
SANCHEZ I PICANYOL AND OTHERS v. SPAIN ■ Applications nos. 25608/20 and 2 others
Political figure imprisoned for his participation in events linked to the Catalan independence referendum; refusal to grant him temporary prison leave to enable his participation in political processes (electoral campaign, parliamentary sittings): no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
A.V. v. SWITZERLAND ■ Application no. 37639/19
Systematic monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence in prison, with the exception of correspondence with her lawyer and several public institutions: no violation of Article 8.
VĂSCĂUŢANU v. ROMANIA (dec.) ■ Application no. 10120/23
Prisoner held in inadequate detention conditions failed to use a domestic preventive remedy rendered effective by recent case-law developments and general measures taken by the authorities to address the structural problems of prison overcrowding and poor detention conditions: inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies).
RASMUSSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK ■ Application no. 2390/24
Death of a prisoner caused by a drug overdose (opioids); prison authorities had not had sufficient facts at their disposal to suggest that there was a real and immediate risk to the prisoner’s life: no violation of Article 2.
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Ukraine | Deterioration of the state of health of a prisoner suffering from a congenital disease for which there is no commonly available cure – retinitis pigmentosa (Nikolayev v. Ukraine, no. 54309/20, 6 November 2025): inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
In partnership with
Funded by the European Union and the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Robert Carr Fund. Neither the European Union nor the Robert Carr Fund can be held responsible for them.
