(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 admissible, and a breach of the prisoner’s article 6 rights had been established. Although there was a right of appeal, the grant of any such visits remained discretionary, and ‘it cannot be consistent with the principle of the rule of law unless it is subject to review. Where there is no such review, the power becomes arbitrary.’
For article 6.1 in its civil limb to be applicable, there must be a dispute over a ‘right’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law: ‘The court may not create by way of interpretation of article 6(1) a substantive right which has no legal basis in the state concerned. The starting-point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts. This court would need strong reasons to differ from the conclusions reached by the superior national courts by finding, contrary to their view, that there was arguably a right recognised by domestic law.’
Nicolas Bratza, P
37575/04, [2012] ECHR 587, (2012) 55 EHRR 32
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.452585