The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic courts in turn rejected his applications for judicial review on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to intervene.
Held: The circumstances involved the determination of a civil right and that the absence of a judicial remedy involved a violation of Article 6: ‘Whilst it is true that the impact on his private life was indirect, it was nevertheless beyond doubt . . the Court considers that the restriction alleged by the applicant, in addition to its pecuniary implications, related to his personal rights, in view of the significance of the applicant’s interest in resettling in society. In that connection it is of the view that the applicant’s social rehabilitation was crucial to the protection of his right to lead ‘a private social life’ and develop his social identity.’
The violation of Article 6 derived from: ‘the lack of any decision on the merits [which] nullified the effect of the Administrative Court’s review of the Prison Board’s decisions’.
Judge Raimondi (dissenting with Judges Jociene and Sajo) said: ‘In my view, the respondent Government were correct in pointing to the discretionary nature of decisions by the domestic authorities concerning requests for prison leave and in concluding that, where the authorities have discretion as to whether or not to grant a particular concession, that concession does not amount to a ‘right’ and, accordingly, Article 6 . . does not apply to proceedings concerning its granting or otherwise.’ Furthermore, the European Prison Rules contained ‘recommendations’ which ‘by definition’ are not binding.
Judges:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto, P
Citations:
37575/04
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Ganci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .
Cited – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
Cited – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited by:
See Also – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave.
Held: The complaint was . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.468877
