References: 41576/98, [2003] ECHR 566, (2005) 41 EHRR 16
Links: Worldlii, Bailii
Ratio: 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 the courts in dealing with his challenge. The Court said: ‘the applicant was contesting the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on a series of rights commonly recognised to prisoners . . at least some of the serious restrictions laid down by the decrees . . such as the one restricting his contact with his family and the ones affecting his finances – certainly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature.’
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR (Bailii, [2008] ECHR 402, 16330/02)
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 . . - Applied – Enea v Italy ECHR (Hudoc, 74912/01)
(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 – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 376, [2012] HRLR 17, [2012] WLR(D) 102, [2012] 4 All ER 44, [2012] 1 WLR 3602)
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 . . - Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 376, [2012] HRLR 17, [2012] WLR(D) 102, [2012] 4 All ER 44, [2012] 1 WLR 3602)
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 . . - Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR (Hudaoc, 46194/06)
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . . - Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR (Hudoc, 37575/04)
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 – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2522 (Admin), [2011] ACD 13, [2011] 1 WLR 2667, [2010] UKHRR 1245)
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22 March 2017
Ref: 213554