Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicants alleged that the detention regime to which the first applicant was subjected in a maximum security prison constituted inhuman and/or degrading treatment and infringed their right to respect for their private and family life, and that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaint of inhuman treatment. He was serving a term of fifteen years, and the prison authorities had concluded that he might use violence to try to escape. He complained that the conditions had caused his mental deterioration. His family complained that the additional lack of contact also damaged them.
Held: The prohibition against degrading treatment is absolute, but a regime must be seen as against its effect on a particular complainant. Weekly strip searches were unnecessary and damaging and infringed the applicant’s article 3 rights. The extra inspections and limits on contact with his family were capable of being an infringement of his right to family life. The authorities were entitled to consider that an escape by Mr Lorse would have posed a serious risk to society. The restrictions of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life did not go beyond what was necessary in a democratic society to attain the legitimate aims intended. The applicant’s situation was reviewed regularly, and various appeals had been heard. There was no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
52750/99, [2003] ECHR 59
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Labita v Italy ECHR 6-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to . .
Cited – The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-1978
The UK lodged a derogation with the Court as regards its human rights obligations in Northern Ireland because of the need to control terroist activity. The Government of Ireland intervened. From August 1971 until December 1975 the UK authorities . .
Cited – Kudla v Poland ECHR 26-Oct-2000
Just what treatment is sufficiently severe to reach the high threshold required for a violation of article 3 ‘depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Peers v Greece ECHR 19-Apr-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The question whether the purpose of the treatment was . .
Cited – Dougoz v Greece ECHR 6-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Aerts v Belgium ECHR 30-Jul-1998
A person detained as a person of unsound mind should not be kept in a prison, but if the institution concerned is within the appropriate category, there is no breach of Article 5. While measures depriving a person of his liberty often involve an . .
Cited – Messina v Italy ECHR 1999
The removal of a prisoner from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or degrading punishment. It is an essential part of a prisoner’s right to respect for . .
Cited – Valasinas v Lithuania ECHR 24-Jul-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to body search; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to other complaints; Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary . .
Cited – McFeeley and others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-May-1980
(Commission) The claimants had been convicted of terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland and were serving prisoners in HMP The Maze. They protested at a change of regime imposed in 1976, resulting in them not being permitted association with the . .
Cited – Kalashnikov v Russia ECHR 15-Jul-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Lacko and Others v Slovakia ECHR 2-Jul-2002
Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint. . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar CA 23-Sep-2003
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.178997