Information Note on the Court’s case-law 50
February 2003
Van der Ven v. the Netherlands - 50901/99
Judgment 4.2.2003 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Detention regime in maximum security prison, including regular strip searches: violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Restrictions on family prison visits: no violation
Facts: The applicant was detained on remand in 1995. He was charged with, inter alia, murder. In 1997, following receipt of intelligence information that the applicant was planning to escape, the authorities transferred him to the Extra Security Institution (“EBI”). The security regime involved, in particular, monitoring of all correspondence and telephone calls (limited to twice a week for 10 minutes), limited contact with other detainees and with prison staff, limitation of family visits to one a week for one hour (via an armoured glass partition, except once a month, when physical contact was however limited to a handshake on arrival and departure), and regular strip-searching of detainees. In a report of 1997, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) concluded that the EBI regime “could be considered to amount to inhuman treatment”. The applicant’s placement in the EBI was continued until May 2001, when he was transferred to a prison with an ordinary detention regime. He was convicted in March 2001 and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed in 2002.
Law: Article 3 – Detention in a high security prison does not in itself raise an issue under this provision but States are required to ensure that the conditions are compatible with respect for human dignity and do not create distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The applicant’s complaints did not concern the material conditions but rather the regime to which he was subjected and the question whether or not this entailed inhuman or degrading treatment depended on an assessment of the extent to which he was personally affected. It was not in dispute that he was subjected to very stringent security measures and his social contacts were strictly limited but this did not involve either sensory isolation or total social isolation. He was placed in the EBI because it was considered extremely likely that he might attempt to escape and he was deemed to be dangerous. Having regard to the very serious nature of the offences, the Court accepted the authorities’ assessment of that risk. Moreover, while several psychiatric reports confirmed that the applicant had difficulties in coping with the limitations of the EBI and displayed symptoms of depression, the fact that he missed his family and the strain caused by the criminal proceedings were also mentioned as contributing factors. The Court did not diverge from the CPT’s view that the situation in the EBI gave cause for concern, especially if detainees were held there for lengthy periods. For the applicant, the systematic use of strip-searches was one of the features of the regime which was hardest to endure. The Court had previously found that strip-searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime. In the present case, however, it was struck by the fact that the applicant was submitted to a weekly strip-search in addition to all the other strict security measures. In those circumstances, and in the absence of convincing security needs, the practice of weekly strip-searches to which the applicant was subjected for approximately three and a half years diminished his human dignity and must have given rise to feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. Thus, the combination of routine strip-searching with the other stringent security measures amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 – Whilst it is an essential part of a prisoner’s right to respect for family life that the prison authorities should assist him in maintaining contact with his family, some measure of control over prisoners’ contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention. In the present case, the applicant was subjected to a regime which involved greater restrictions on his private and family life than a regular prison regime in the Netherlands and there was thus an interference with his right to respect for private and family life. There was no indication that the restrictions were not “in accordance with the law” and they pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. The authorities were entitled to consider that an escape by the applicant would have posed a serious risk to society and the security measures were established in order to prevent escapes. Security was thus concentrated on those occasions when, and places where, a detainee might obtain objects which could be used in an escape attempt or where he might obtain or exchange information relating to such an attempt. Within these constraints, the applicant was able to receive visitors and to have contact with other inmates and, in the circumstances, the restrictions on his private and family life did not go beyond what was necessary in a democratic society to attain the legitimate aims pursued.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(This case raises issues similar to those in Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52570/99, 4 February 2003. In addition, the Court concluded in that judgment that there had been no violation of Article 3 with regard to the effect of visiting restrictions on the detainee’s family and that there had been no violation of Article 13.)
© 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