Communicated on 25 March 2015
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 12879/09
Mārtiņš ĒCIS against Latvia
lodged on 12 December 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Mārtiņš Ēcis, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1981 and currently serves his sentence in a prison in Riga.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s conviction and prison regime
3. The applicant was convicted of unspecified serious crimes and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. His conviction took effect in 2002.
4. In accordance with section 504, paragraph 1 of the Sentence Enforcement Code he was placed in a closed prison at the maximum security level.
5. On unspecified date he was transferred to the medium security level in the closed prison.
6. According to the applicant, in the first-half of 2008 he realised that there is a difference in treatment of male and female inmates. Male inmates, who had been convicted of serious crimes, started to serve their sentences in closed prisons, while female inmates, who had been convicted of serious crimes, started to serve their sentences in partly-closed prisons. Restrictions, which male and female inmates had to comply with, were different in closed and partly-closed prisons.
2. Review of the applicant’s complaints
(a) Ministry of Justice
7. On 1 July 2008 the Ministry of Justice examined the applicant’s complaint about the difference in treatment. He also asked to be transferred to a party-closed prison and requested compensation. In reply, a reference was made to section 504, paragraph 1 and section 505, paragraph 1, part 1 of the Sentence Enforcement Code. It was explained that the legislator had chosen a different legal regulation for persons depending on their gender. There was no discrimination on grounds of gender because both – male and female inmates – were deprived of liberty and their rights were restricted. There were no grounds to consider that there was gender-based discrimination in the area of sentence execution. Application of different regulation on the grounds of gender could not be considered as discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicant’s human rights. The applicant could not claim compensation as no elements of unlawfulness were found. Lastly, a reference was made to section 5010, paragraph 2 of the Sentence Enforcement Code, in accordance with which the relevant prison commission had competence, among other things, to transfer inmates from one prison to another. Thus, the applicant could ask to be transferred from closed to partly-closed prison. He also could lodge an appeal with a court against a decision taken by the commission (section 5013 of the Sentence Enforcement Code).
(b) The Constitutional Court
8. The applicant, in his first application to the Constitutional Court, argued that section 504, paragraph 1 of the Sentence Enforcement Code was not compatible with Article 91 of the Constitution (prohibition of discrimination). He pointed out that women in partly-closed prisons were entitled to have more and longer visits as well as could make more phone calls than men in closed prisons. Women could also be granted leave from prison for up to 7 days per year, whereas men could not.
9. On 29 July 2008 the Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings (lēmums par atteikšanos ierosināt lietu) on the grounds of insufficient legal reasoning – he had failed to specify why men and women were in comparable situations and why different treatment would not be justified.
10. The applicant lodged another application, adding that men and women, who were convicted of serious crimes and imprisoned, were in comparable situations.
11. On 5 September 2008 the Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings on the grounds of insufficient legal reasoning – he had failed to specify in conjunction with which human right he complained about discrimination. The second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, like Article 14 of the Convention, required a connection with a human right. The Constitutional Court also noted that there were certain criteria which had to be addressed in order to establish that a legal provision was not compatible with first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution (comparable groups, difference in treatment, lack of objective and reasonable justification). Given that the applicant’s application was based on a mere assumption that men and women were in comparable situations, also in this respect his application was lacking sufficient legal reasoning.
12. In his third application, the applicant added that on 2 October 2008 he had been refused prison leave to attend his father’s funeral. He considered that he was discriminated, because a woman in the same situation would have been able to attend funeral. He also referred to private life, freedom of expression and right to marry in support of his discrimination-related complaint.
13. On 21 November 2008 the Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings on the grounds of insufficient legal reasoning – he had failed to specify why men and women were in comparable situations.
COMPLAINT
14. The applicant complains under Article 14, in essence in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, about discrimination of male inmates in Latvia in so far as it concerns the prison regime.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his gender, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy