SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56419/15
Heigo LOOG
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 May 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges
and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 November 2015,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant, Mr Heigo Loog, is an Estonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Jõhvi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 January 2013 the applicant submitted an application to Viru Prison to transfer money to his children from a savings fund which is handed over to prisoners on their release. The sum the applicant wanted to transfer was altogether EUR 610, or EUR 305 per child.
On 13 February 2013 Viru Prison refused to grant his application to transfer money from the account. The prison referred to the Imprisonment Act (see Relevant domestic law).
The applicant lodged court appeals against the prison’s refusal to make the monetary transfers, but they did not satisfy his request. On 30 September 2013 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that the Imprisonment Act did not allow transfers from the money deposited as a savings fund for him after his release. The court found that the limitations that had been put on transferring such funds had a legitimate aim and that the level of severity of that temporary limitation on the prisoner’s civil rights was low. The court found that it was reasonable to make sure the applicant had a certain amount of money for his reintegration into society after his release from prison.
On 6 February 2015 the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Court judgment. The Court of Appeal found, inter alia, that the aim of the savings fund for prisoners was also to protect the fundamental rights of third persons by preventing new crimes by a prisoner who lacked money after his release.
On 3 June 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments and refused to admit a cassation appeal by the applicant (administrative case no. 3-13-970).
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Imprisonment Act, as in force at the material time, provided as follows:
Section 44 (Personal account)
“(1) The prison service shall transfer a prisoner’s wages and other funds paid to the prisoner to the prisoner’s internal personal account.
(2) Of the funds deposited in the prisoner’s personal account, 50 per cent shall be reserved for the satisfaction of monetary/financial claims, 20 per cent shall be deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on release and the rest of the funds shall be reserved for the use of the prisoner inside the prison pursuant to the internal rules of the prison. If no monetary/financial claims exist against the prisoner or if the claims amount to less than 50 per cent of the funds in the prisoner’s personal account, the corresponding funds in the personal account of the prisoner shall also be deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on release.
(3) The amount of the savings fund to be deposited shall be equal to three times the minimum monthly wage established by the Government of the Republic.
(4) At the request of the prisoner, the amount of the savings fund to be deposited may exceed the amount provided for in subsection (3) of this section and the funds reserved for the use of the prisoner inside the prison may be used for the satisfaction of monetary/financial claims, sent to his or her family members or dependents or transferred to his or her bank account.”
At the relevant time the amount under section 44 (3) corresponded to EUR 960.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the prison’s refusal to transfer funds to his children from the money deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to him on his release from prison, the amount he wanted to transfer being EUR 610 altogether, or EUR 305 per child.
THE LAW
1. As regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court notes that the Estonian law prescribes that the use of prisoner`s personal account has certain limitations concerning the money deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on release. They amount to a control of use of the applicant’s property within the meaning of the second paragraph of that provision.
The legitimate aim of such limitations is to secure that the applicant has a certain sum of money for his reintegration into the society after the release from prison. The legitimate aim of the savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on release is also to protect fundamental rights of third persons by preventing the commitment of new crimes by a prisoner who is lack of money after his release.
The Court reiterates that States have a wide margin of appreciation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in order to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. In Stummer v. Austria (no. 37452/02, 7 July 2011, § 109) the Court found that interference with prisoners’ property rights would contravene Convention principles if the interference, taken as whole, was “manifestly without reasonable foundation”.
In the present case, the Court considers that the national authorities cannot be reproached for having given some priority to ensuring that a limited sum of money was deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to the applicant on his release from prison. It further observes that the impact of the temporary limitation on the applicant’s property rights was low.
A State has the right to use such schemes as it considers most appropriate for the reintegration of prisoners into society upon their release, including by securing them a certain amount of money. The sums of savings funds which are handed over to a prisoner on release are quite moderate, with the savings amount to be deposited being equal to three times the minimum monthly wage established by the Government (altogether EUR 960 at the time the prison’s decision was made). The money in the savings fund is not taken by the State, but remains the property of the prisoner.
In conclusion, the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
2. As to the alleged interference with the applicant’s family life under Article 8, the Court finds that putting legal limitations on the money which is deposited as a savings fund to be handed over to prisoners on their release cannot in the applicant’s case be seen as having a disproportionate impact on his or his children’s situation.
The applicant has not explained why there was a sudden need for a one-off transfer of money to his children namely from the money deposited as a savings fund. There is no indication that his children quickly needed money or that there were any other circumstances of particular importance for the welfare of his children. The applicant also made no claims in that regard.
It follows that the complaint under Article 8 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
3. As for the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate it. The State has the obligation under Article 13 of the Convention to ensure that anyone who has an arguable complaint has an effective remedy before a national authority. In the present case, in view of the above conclusions, the applicant has no arguable complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2016.
Milan Blaško Paul Lemmens
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy