Legal summary
March 2026
Petrov v. the Republic of Moldova - 38066/18
Judgment 5.3.2026 [Section V]
Article 4
Article 4-2
Compulsory labour
Forced labour
Failure of respondent State to comply with its positive obligations to protect applicant against the “forced or compulsory labour” associated with his belonging to the “outcast” group within informal prisoner hierarchy: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Failure by State authorities to comply with their obligation to protect the applicant, without discrimination, against the segregation, assignment to menial labour and denial of access to basic prison resources imposed by his co-detainees on account of his “outcast” status within informal prisoner hierarchy: violation
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
General measures
Respondent State required to take general measures to address systemic issue of informal prisoner hierarchies
Facts – Between 2006 and 2021 the applicant served a prison sentence in various prisons. He complained about being required to work without remuneration, his conditions of detention and the discrimination to which he had allegedly been subjected on account of his “outcast” status within the lowest category of an informal prisoner hierarchy. His complaints were dismissed by the prison authorities and the domestic courts.
Law – Article 3 taken together with Article 14:
(1) Establishment of the facts – The Court considered it established, first, that the applicant had belonged to the lowest “caste” of the informal prisoner hierarchy and, secondly, that he had indeed been subjected to at least the physical and social segregation, denial of access to certain basic prison resources and assignment to menial labour imposed on him by the other prisoners on account of his “outcast” status.
(2) Whether the threshold of severity had been reached – With regard to the physical and symbolic separation of “outcast” prisoners, the applicant’s situation was substantially similar to that of the applicant in D v. Latvia. Following the same approach in the present case, the Court therefore considered that, coupled with his assignment to menial labour and denial of access to basic prison resources, the stigmatisation and physical and social segregation the applicant had suffered on account of his belonging to the “outcast” group of prisoners had exposed him to mental anxiety and physical suffering that had to have exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even though he had not been subjected to physical violence. That situation, which the applicant had endured over a period of years, amounted to degrading treatment, and the threshold of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 had therefore been reached.
(3) The State’s positive obligation to protect the applicant, without discrimination, against ill-treatment – Given that the phenomenon of informal prisoner hierarchies was widespread and well-documented within Moldovan prisons, the Court considered that the State authorities, which had repeatedly been alerted by the applicant about his subordinate position, could not have been unaware of the risks to which his vulnerable situation exposed him.
The domestic authorities had, however, failed to put in place any measures to reduce the applicant’s vulnerability. In addition, nothing allowed the Court to conclude that there were effective mechanisms in place to address the more general issue of informal prisoner hierarchies. The national authorities had therefore failed to take sufficient measures to protect the applicant against the treatment associated with his belonging to the “outcast” group.
The Court found that the applicant’s belonging to that group had placed him in a distinct situation compared to other prisoners, that this status had affected almost every aspect of his daily life in prison and that, as such, it had been inextricably linked to his personal situation and his existence during his detention. The fact of his belonging to the “outcast group” therefore brought him within the ambit of “other status”, for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention.
The Court considered that, in a contemporary democratic society built on respect for human dignity, no difference in treatment based on compulsory membership of the lowest “caste”, the members of which were dehumanised and denied recognition of their very existence as human beings, was capable of being objectively justified.
In the Court’s view, the combination of the above-mentioned factors clearly demonstrated that the authorities’ inaction had not constituted a mere failure to protect the applicant against degrading treatment in prison, but indeed a tolerance, or even condoning, of such treatment which reflected a discriminatory attitude towards him, motivated by his status in the informal prisoner hierarchy. The materials in the present case also demonstrated that the authorities had been fully aware of the seriousness and scale of the issue of informal prisoner hierarchies in Moldovan prisons and its discriminatory effect on prisoners categorised as “outcasts” but had done nothing to address it. In consequence, the State’s failure to afford the applicant protection against the degrading treatment he had suffered in prison on account of his belonging to the “outcast” group had amounted to a violation of his right to the equal protection of the law.
There had accordingly been a failure by the State authorities to comply with their obligation to protect the applicant – without discrimination – against treatment prohibited by Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 4:
(1) Establishment of the facts – The Court considered it established that, during his detention, the applicant had performed arduous and menial tasks (renovating cells, carrying heavy loads, cleaning toilets, collecting dustbins and refuse within the prison, and so on) and that these tasks had been compulsory on account of his “outcast” status within the informal prisoner hierarchy that was in place. The prison authorities had known about the applicant’s “outcast” status and could not have been unaware that the arduous and menial tasks were generally carried out by “outcast” prisoners. In addition, those authorities, the responsibilities of which included the supervision of prisoners, could not have been unaware of the work actually carried out by the applicant. The Court concluded from this that the work had been imposed on the applicant with the agreement of the prison administration.
In view of the above considerations, the Court decided to examine the present complaint from the standpoint of the State’s positive obligations to protect the applicant against forced or compulsory labour.
(2) Whether the tasks performed by the applicant were “forced or compulsory labour” – The work performed by the applicant had been assigned to him in accordance with the informal “code of conduct” to which he had been subject on account of his “outcast” status, and failure to comply with that “code” would have resulted in retaliation by fellow prisoners. The applicant had not alleged any actual violence against him, but the Court considered that in the circumstances of the case, there had been a genuine risk of such violence on the part of fellow prisoners or of additional humiliating treatment had he refused to perform the tasks assigned to him. In the light of this physical and mental coercion, the Court was therefore satisfied that the applicant had been performing work “under the menace of [a] penalty and for which [he had] not offered himself voluntarily”.
(3) Whether the tasks performed by the applicant were covered by Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention – Having followed the same approach as in Meier v. Switzerland, the Court considered that the fact that the aim of the work imposed on the applicant on account of his status within the informal prisoner hierarchy had been to punish and humiliate him, that there was no evidence that the work – which was physically arduous and/or menial – had been appropriate to the applicant’s state of health and physical capacities, and that the work was distributed between prisoners in a discriminatory manner on the basis of belonging to the lowest “caste” within the informal prisoner hierarchy, sufficed for it to consider that the work in question fell outside the “normal” limits in this area. It therefore concluded that the work performed by the applicant could not be regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” and that it had therefore not been covered by the terms of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Accordingly, it had amounted to “forced or compulsory labour” within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention.
(4) The respondent State’s positive obligations under Article 4 of the Convention – As in its findings under Article 3 taken together with Article 14, the Court noted that in the present case the authorities had been fully aware of the applicant’s individual situation and of the seriousness of the general issue of informal prisoner hierarchies, and that they had not taken any measures to protect him from the “forced or compulsory labour” associated with his belonging to the “outcast” group.
(5) Conclusion – The respondent State had accordingly failed to comply with its positive obligations to protect the applicant from treatment prohibited under Article 4 § 2.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: It was for the domestic authorities to take appropriate general measures to address the systemic issue of informal prisoner hierarchies.
Article 41: No claim in respect of damage.
(See Meier v. Switzerland, 10109/14, 9 February 2016, Legal Summary; S.P. and Others v. Russia, 36463/11 et al, 2 May 2023, Legal Summary; D v. Latvia, 76680/17, 11 January 2024, Legal Summary)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
To access legal summaries in English or French click here.
For non-official translations into other languages click here.