Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 122
August-September 2009
Enea v. Italy [GC] - 74912/01
Judgment 17.9.2009 [GC]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Fair hearing
Right of access to court of prisoner held in high-security wing of prison to assert rights of a civil nature: violation
Facts – The applicant had been sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment for, among other offences, membership of a Mafia-type criminal organisation. In August 1994, in view of the danger posed by the applicant, the Minister of Justice issued a decree ordering that he be subject for one year to the special prison regime provided for in the second paragraph of section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act and applied for reasons of public order and safety. The decree imposed various restrictions in terms of visits, activities and monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence. Application of the special regime was extended until late 2005 by means of nineteen decrees, each valid for a limited period. The applicant lodged several appeals with the court responsible for the execution of sentences, which on three occasions decided to ease some of the restrictions imposed on him. One of the appeals was declared inadmissible on the ground that the period of validity of the decree in question had expired and the applicant therefore no longer had any interest in having it examined. The court eventually ordered the application of the special regime to be discontinued, and in March 2005 the applicant was placed in a high-supervision unit, where certain very dangerous prisoners are held separately from other inmates. The decision per se to place a prisoner in a high-supervision unit is not amenable to appeal.
The applicant had a number of health problems and was obliged to use a wheelchair. Between June 2000 and February 2005 he served his sentence in the section of the prison’s hospital wing reserved for prisoners detained under the special regime. In October 2008 the court responsible for the execution of sentences ordered a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence on health grounds. He has been under house arrest since that time.
Law – Article 3: The restrictions imposed under the special prison regime had been necessary in order to prevent the applicant, who posed a danger to society, from maintaining contacts with the criminal organisation to which he belonged. However, the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had lifted or eased certain of those restrictions. Furthermore, the domestic authorities had fulfilled their obligation to protect the applicant’s physical well-being by monitoring his state of health carefully, assessing the seriousness of his health problems, providing him with the appropriate medical care and ordering his admission to hospital where necessary. Accordingly, the treatment to which he had been subjected had not exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.
Conclusion: no violation (fifteen votes to two).
Article 6 § 1: (a) Restrictions on the right to a court during the period of application of the special prison regime – Prisoners subjected to the special prison regime had ten days from the date on which the ministerial decree was served in which to lodge an appeal, which did not have suspensive effect, with the court responsible for the execution of sentences. The latter in its turn had to give a ruling within ten days; that time-limit was imposed on account of the serious impact of the special regime on prisoners’ rights and the fact that the impugned decision remained valid for only a limited time. The court had dismissed one of the applicant’s appeals more than four months after it was lodged, on the ground that the validity of the impugned decree had expired. Hence, in the absence of any decision on the merits, the courts’ review of the decree in question had been deprived of its substance.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Restrictions on the right to a court during the period of detention in a high-supervision unit
(i) Admissibility: Article 6 § 1 was not applicable under its criminal head, as the proceedings concerning the prison system had not related in principle to determination of a “criminal charge”. On the other hand, the question of access to a court with jurisdiction to rule on placement in a high-supervision unit and the restrictions liable to accompany it fell to be examined under the civil head of Article 6 § 1. Most of the restrictions to which the applicant had allegedly been subjected related to a set of prisoners’ rights which the Council of Europe had recognised by means of the European Prison Rules, set forth in a Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers. Although that recommendation was not legally binding on the member States, the great majority of them recognised that prisoners enjoyed most of the rights to which it referred, and provided for avenues of appeal against measures restricting those rights. Accordingly, a “dispute” (contestation) over a “right” could reasonably be said to have existed in the instant case. In addition, some of the restrictions alleged by the applicant, such as those limiting his contact with his family and those which affected his pecuniary rights, clearly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature. That being said, it was essential for States to retain a wide discretion with regard to the means of ensuring security and order in the difficult context of prison. Nevertheless, any restriction affecting those individual civil rights had to be open to challenge in judicial proceedings, on account of the nature of the restrictions and their possible repercussions. By that means it was possible to achieve the fair balance which had to be struck between the constraints facing the State in the prison context on the one hand and the protection of prisoners’ rights on the other. Accordingly, this complaint was compatible rationemateriae with the provisions of the Convention since it related to Article 6 under its civil head.
Conclusion: admissible (sixteen votes to one).
(ii) Merits: While it was true that a prisoner could not challenge the merits of a decision to place him or her in a high-supervision unit per se, an appeal lay to the courts responsible for the execution of sentences against any restriction of a civil right (affecting, for instance, a prisoner’s family visits or his or her correspondence). Given that in the instant case the applicant’s placement in the unit had not entailed any restrictions of that kind, even the possible lack of such a remedy could not be said to amount to a denial of access to court.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 8: (a) August 1994 to July 2004 – There had been interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. The monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence between August 1994 and July 2004 had not been in accordance with the law, in so far as the law applied in the present case did not regulate either the duration of the measure or the reasons capable of justifying it, and did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the discretion exercised by the competent authorities. The Court saw no reason to depart in the instant case from its existing case-law, designed to ensure that all prisoners enjoyed the minimum degree of protection to which citizens were entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Period thereafter – With regard to the period from July 2004 until the stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence, the Court simply observed that there were no documents in the case file to support the assertions of the applicant’s representatives.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy