Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266
September 2022
Stanislav Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) - 483/10
Judgment 15.9.2022 [Section V]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
No legal basis for disciplinary sanctions leading to imposition of stricter prison regime and repeated prison transfers: violation
Facts – The applicant was serving a prison sentence at the relevant time. In 2008, this Court found that the domestic court proceedings concerning his conviction for murder had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (fair hearing). After publication of that judgment, the applicant was, inter alia, subjected to a number of disciplinary sanctions, leading to the imposition of a stricter prison regime. He was also transferred on three occasions to other prisons which were situated further away from his home. The applicant complained about the sanctions, some of which were quashed by the prosecutor’s office. In May 2011 the domestic court granted the applicant early and immediate release, referring to his exemplary behaviour during imprisonment. Although that decision was quashed, upon remittal the domestic court once again ordered his early release.
Law – Article 8:
The impugned measures had affected the applicant’s daily life in prison in a very significant manner. For instance, he had no longer been allowed to benefit from temporary release or to visit family, keep money or wear civilian clothes. Article 8 was accordingly applicable and the measures had constituted an interference with his private life. The Court had to determine whether the interference had been lawful:
Regarding the disciplinary sanctions and the imposition of a strict prison regime, it was noted that, immediately prior to the publication of the Court’s judgment, the applicant had been commended by the prison authority on numerous occasions for his good behaviour and been placed under a less severe regime of detention. Thereafter, however, he had been placed in a disciplinary cell for periods between ten and fifteen days for breaches of prison rules and had subsequently faced an adverse change in his detention conditions after transfer to a unit with a stricter regime. The applicable domestic legislation had provided that a change of prison regime had only been possible in the event of a flagrant breach of the prison rules. The Government had not claimed that the applicant’s misconduct which had led to the imposition of a stricter regime (absence from the working place and possession of a mobile phone) had constituted flagrant breaches within the meaning of the applicable law.
As to the transfers between prisons, the applicant had initially served his sentence in a prison located 18 km from his home. After the Court’s judgment, however, between 2009 and 2011 he had been transferred to three different prisons, located between 72 km and 1,390 km from his home. Under domestic law, transfers were permitted only under exceptional circumstances.
The only available document addressing the sanctions and transfers was the decision of the domestic court in May 2011 ordering the applicant’s early release for the first time. It had described the sanctions as “groundless and incomprehensible” and underlined the exceptional nature of transfers. It had also stated that the prosecutor had annulled the sanctions as biased and baseless, and that, later, the head of one of the prisons had cancelled sanctions following an internal review, which had proved them to be unreasonable and unlawful. Although the decision had been quashed for reasons unknown, and the case had been remitted for fresh examination, the validity of the decisions of the prosecutor and head of prison had not been affected. After the remittal, the domestic court had again ordered the applicant’s release on the basis of his commendations for good behaviour, his positive attitude towards work and studies, and lack of any unfavourable comments from the administration of the fourth prison regarding his behaviour or adherence to prison rules. That decision, which had not stated that the May 2011 judgment’s findings had been incorrect, had become final.
The above was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the impugned disciplinary sanctions, leading to the imposition of a stricter prison regime, and decisions to transfer the applicant repeatedly to other prisons, had had no legal basis.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The applicant complained, under Article 18, that he was subjected to reprisals while in prison, in retaliation for the successful outcome of his application to the Court. The Court rejected this complaint as manifestly ill-founded: both the applicant’s and the Government’s submissions lacked sufficient details on that matter, preventing the Court from examining and deciding on the purpose of the disputed treatment.
Article 41: EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Lutsenko v. Ukraine, 30663/04, 18 December 2008)
© 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