Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 147
December 2011
Laduna v. Slovakia - 31827/02
Judgment 13.12.2011 [Section III]
Article 14
Discrimination
Unjustified difference in treatment of remand prisoners compared to convicted prisoners as regards visiting rights and access to television: violation
Facts – The applicant was detained pending trial from 1 September 2001 to 9 February 2006, when he began a nine-year prison sentence. In his application to the European Court, he complained that at the material time remand prisoners did not have the same visiting rights as convicted prisoners and that, unlike convicted prisoners, they had no access to television.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8: Prison restrictions on family visits and on watching television came within the ambit of private and family life under Article 8. Article 14 was therefore applicable. Detention on remand fell within the notion of “other status” within the meaning of that provision as, even though it could be imposed involuntarily and generally for a temporary period, it constituted a distinct legal situation that was inextricably bound up with the individual’s personal circumstances and existence. Further, as a remand prisoner the applicant was in a relevantly similar situation to the comparator group of convicted prisoners since his complaints concerned visiting rights and access to television in prison which were issues of relevance to all prisoners.
At the material time, remand prisoners were allowed to receive visits for a minimum of thirty minutes a month compared to the two hours allowed convicted prisoners. Moreover, for much of the relevant period the frequency of visits and the type of contact which convicted prisoners were allowed depended on the security level of the prison in which they were being held, whereas remand prisoners were all subject to the same regime, regardless of the reasons for their detention and the security considerations.
The Court was not satisfied that there had been any objective and reasonable justification for these differences in treatment. The provisions of the Detention Act 1993 requiring any restrictions on detainees’ rights to be justified by the purpose of the detention and the need to ensure order, the safety of others and the protection of property did not justify restricting remand prisoners’ rights to a greater extent than those of convicted prisoners and the arrangements had been criticised by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) in its reports on visits to Slovakia in 1995, 2000 and 2005. Furthermore, while particular restrictions on a prisoner’s visiting rights might in some instances be justified for security reasons or to protect the legitimate interests of an investigation, those aims could be attained by other means which did not affect all detained persons regardless of whether they were actually required. For example, different categories of detention could be used, or particular restrictions imposed if necessary in an individual case. International instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Prison Rules of 1987* stressed the need to respect the remand prisoner’s status as a person who is to be presumed innocent, while the European Prison Rules 2006, which were adopted shortly before the applicant’s detention on remand ended, provided that unless there was a specific reason to the contrary untried prisoners should receive visits and be allowed to communicate with family and other persons in the same way as convicted prisoners. In the light of these considerations, the visiting restrictions imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate.
As regards the lack of access to television, the Government had failed to put forward any objective justification for treating remand prisoners differently to convicted prisoners, for whom television was considered part of their cultural and educational activities.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Making the applicant’s right to buy additional food and other products in the prison shop conditional on his applying at least the same amount of money to the reimbursement of his registered debts constituted interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. That interference had a legal basis and securing the reimbursement of debt was undoubtedly in the general interest. As to proportionality, the interference had limited but not deprived the applicant of the ability to use the money in his prison account to buy food and other products in the prison shop. Furthermore, the requirement to reimburse his debts did not apply to medicine, indispensable sanitary items, materials for correspondence, or taxes and fees. Accordingly, regard being had to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States in the debt-recovery sphere, the interference was not disproportionate to the aim pursued.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 13: The Court notes that it declared admissible and examined the applicant’s complaints under the substantive provisions of the Convention only to the extent that the alleged breach stemmed from the alleged deficiencies in the relevant law. Article 13 could not be interpreted as requiring a remedy against the state of domestic law.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Recommendation No. R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the European Prison Rules adopted on 12 February 1987, replaced with Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the European Prison Rules adopted on 11 January 2006.
© 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