Information Note on the Court’s case-law 193
February 2016
Meier v. Switzerland - 10109/14
Judgment 9.2.2016 [Section III]
Article 4
Article 4-3-a
Work required of detainees
Continuing obligation on prisoner to work after reaching retirement age: no violation
Facts – The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He submitted a request for exemption from the work he was required to do in prison (colouring mandalas, cleaning his cell and making sculptures), but it was refused. In May 2012 a stricter prison regime was imposed on him confining him to his cell and his TV set and computer were removed for a fortnight on account of his refusal to work. That decision was subsequently cancelled.
Before the European Court the applicant complained that he had been forced to work as part of his punishment and measures, even though he had reached retirement age.
Law – Article 4: This was the first case in which the Court had to examine the issue of an obligation to perform prison work after retirement age.
If the applicant refused to perform the work assigned to him he rendered himself guilty of insubordination and had to face the consequences, as attested by the imposition of a stricter prison regime and the removal of his TV set and computer for two weeks. Even though that decision was subsequently cancelled, the penalty appeared relatively harsh. At all events, using the definition of forced or compulsory labour set out in Convention No. 29 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as the basis for interpreting Article 4 § 2 of the European Convention, there could be no doubt that the applicant had performed work “under the menace of [a] penalty and for which [he had] not offered himself voluntarily”.
The question remained whether the work performed by the applicant was work of a type habitually required of a person subject to incarceration under the conditions set out in Article 5 of the Convention. That question should be examined in the light of the aim, nature and extent of the work imposed and the manner and means of its execution.
A prisoner’s duty to continue working even after retirement age could be considered to comply with the aim of reducing the harmful effects of imprisonment. Appropriate and reasonable work could help structure everyday life and preserve useful activity, goals which were important to the well-being of a long-term prisoner. As regards the nature of the work carried out by prisoners who have reached retirement age, the obligation was not applicable to all prisoners to the same extent but was suited, depending on circumstances, to their capacities and especially their fitness for work and state of health. Moreover, persons suffering from mental disorders were only assigned light work, usually less intensively. In the event of unfitness for work certified by a doctor, the prisoner was exempted from compulsory work. The work assigned to the applicant appeared to comply with these guidelines as he was only required to take part in supervised work, including colouring mandalas, cleaning his cell and carving driftwood sculptures. Such activities were wholly appropriate to his age and physical capacities. Furthermore, he only worked about three hours a day, was integrated in the “dependant and retired persons wing” and was paid for his work.
The lack of a sufficient consensus among member States on requiring prisoners to work after reaching retirement age meant that the national authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation. Rule No. 105.2 of the European Prison Rules was not necessarily to be interpreted as completely prohibiting member States from requiring prisoners who had reached retirement age to work. Consequently, the work performed by the applicant during his incarceration, including that carried out after he reached retirement age, could be considered “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention”, within the meaning of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention and did not amount to “forced or compulsory labour”. In view of the foregoing considerations and the fact that the applicant had not complained of the arrangements for performing the work assigned to him, there had been no violation of Article 4 of the Convention.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© 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