Skip to main content

Human Rights in European Prisons: Can the Implementation of Strasbourg Court Judgments Influence Penitentiary Reform Domestically?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Europe in Prisons

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology ((PSIPP))

Abstract

This chapter explores the domestic implementation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments that are related to overcrowding and poor material conditions in European prisons. The first part describes the processes and mechanisms of domestic implementation of ECtHR’s judgments, their supervision and monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, and the extent and the ways in which they can influence domestic reform of the penitentiary system. On the basis of an initial data set of 165 judgments, which we have compiled, the second part of the chapter provides an overview of the relevant ECtHR’s judgments and the issues that they raise, the states most frequently implicated, and the nature and range of measures that national authorities institute in response to the Strasbourg Court’s judgments that find violations of the Convention. The third part describes and discusses the kind of reforms and measures that national authorities undertake by way of implementing the general measures that are called for by the relevant ECtHR judgments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the significant prisoners’ rights case law of the ECommHR and the ECtHR until the late 1990s, as well as their restrictive approach in this area, see Livingstone (2000).

  2. 2.

    The CPT draws this distinction between ‘active’ infliction of ill-treatment and ‘passive’ ill-treatment . See Murdoch (2006: 171).

  3. 3.

    Ilhan v. Turkey, App. No.22277/93, 27 June 2000; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, App. No. 15825/06, 25 January 2008.

  4. 4.

    Other kinds of violations of structural nature are the excessive length of proceedings and lack of domestic remedy, prolonged non-enforcement of court decisions and lack of domestic remedy, violations of the right to the protection of property, and exclusion of convicted prisoners from voting.

  5. 5.

    PPR is the rate of the registered prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in each country. For detailed data on prison population, see Walmsley (2013); Aebi and Delgrande (2015).

  6. 6.

    On the numbers and percentages of foreigners among inmates in the CoE states, see Aebi and Delgrande (2015: 90–91).

  7. 7.

    Rec(2006)2 of the CoM to member states on the European Prison Rules.

  8. 8.

    Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, App. No. 38812/97, 29 April 2003; see Marochini (2009: 1115).

  9. 9.

    In some cases, when specific obstacles hamper implementation, the CoM may adopt as a form of pressure an interim resolution criticizing a state’s failure to abide by a judgment and urging it to take further action.

  10. 10.

    The pilot procedure was first introduced in the case of Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, 22 June 2004.

  11. 11.

    The relevant procedure was codified in the Rules of Court in 2011 (Rule 61).

  12. 12.

    Other cardinal issues under enhanced supervision were actions by security forces (20%), excessive length of judicial proceedings (11%), and non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions (7%), among others.

  13. 13.

    Ilhan v. Turkey, App. No. 22277/93, 27 June 2000.

  14. 14.

    Aerts v. Belgium, App. No. 25357/94, 30 June 1998.

  15. 15.

    Kröcher and Möller v. Switzerland, No. 8463/78, 9 July 1981.

  16. 16.

    Hurtado v. Switzerland, App. No. 17549/90, 28 January 1994.

  17. 17.

    Kehayov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 41035/98, 18 April 2005.

  18. 18.

    See Moisejevs v. Latvia, App. No. 64846/01, 23 October 2006.

  19. 19.

    See Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, App. No. 44084/10, 5 June 2013.

  20. 20.

    See Fehér v. Hungary, App. No. 69095/10, 2 October 2013; Modârcă v. Moldova, App. No. 14437/05, 10 August 2007.

  21. 21.

    See Kalashnikov v. Russia, App. No. 47095/99, 15 October 2002.

  22. 22.

    See Kalashnikov v. Russia, App. No. 47095/99, 15 October 2002.

  23. 23.

    See Kehayov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 41035/98, 18 April 2005; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, App. No. 1704/06, 27 April 2009.

  24. 24.

    See Modârcă v. Moldova, App. No. 14437/05, 10 August 2007.

  25. 25.

    See Kalashnikov v. Russia, App. No. 47095/99, 15 October 2002.

  26. 26.

    See Kehayov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 41035/98, 18 April 2005; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, App. No. 1704/06, 27 April 2009; Ahmade v. Greece, App. No. 50520/09, 25 December 2012; Modârcă v. Moldova, App. No. 14437/05, 10 August 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, App. No. 47095/99, 15 October 2002.

  27. 27.

    See Kehayov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 41035/98, 18 April 2005.

  28. 28.

    See Modârcă v. Moldova, App. No. 14437/05, 10 August 2007.

  29. 29.

    See Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, App. No. 34334/04, 15 September 2010; Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, App. No. 10486/10, 20 March 2012; Lankester v. Belgium, App. No. 22283/10, 9 April 2014; Claes v. Belgium, App. No. 43418/09, 10 April 2013; Poghossian v. Georgia, App. No. 9870/07, 24 May 2009; Kotsaftis v. Greece, App. No. 39780/06, 12 September 2008; Cirillo v. Italy, App. No. 36276/10, 29 April 2013; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, App. No. 2570/04, 6 December 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, App. No. 72286/01, 28 June 2006; Grori v. Albania, App. No. 7 October 2009; V.D. v. Romania, App. No. 7078/02, 28 June 2010.

  30. 30.

    See Kotsaftis v. Greece, App. No. 39780/06, 12 September 2008.

  31. 31.

    See Dybeku v. Albania, App. No. 41153/06, 2 June 2008; Dobri v. Romania, App. No. 25153/04, 20 June 2011.

  32. 32.

    See Dobri v. Romania, App. No. 25153/04, 20 June 2011.

  33. 33.

    See L.B. v. Belgium, App. No. 22831/08, 2 January 2013; Riviere v. France, App. No. 33834/03, 11 October 2006; Mouisel v. France, App. No. 67263/01, 21 May 2003; Renolde v. France, App. No. 5608/05, 16 January 2009.

  34. 34.

    See Vincent v. France, App. No. 6253/03, 26 March 2007; Helhal v. France, App. No. 10401/12, 19 May 2015; Raffray Taddei v. France, App. No. 36435/07, 21 March 2011; Z.H. v. Hungary, App. No. 28973/11, 8 February 2013; Kaprykowski v. Poland, App. No. 23052/05, 3 May 2009; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, App. No. 56664/08, 12 July 2011; Price v. UK, App. No. 33394/96, 10 October 2001.

  35. 35.

    See Renolde v. France, App. No. 5608/05, 16 January 2009.

  36. 36.

    See Kaprykowski v. Poland, App. No. 23052/05, 3 May 2009.

  37. 37.

    See Vincent v. France, App. No. 6253/03, 26 March 2007.

  38. 38.

    See Orchowski v. Poland, App. No. 17885/04, 22 January 2010; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, App.No. 17599/05, 22 January 2010; Szel v. Hungary, App. No. 30221/06, 7 September 2011; Nisiotis v. Greece, App. No. 34704/08, 20 June 2011.

  39. 39.

    See Szel v. Hungary, App. No. 30221/06, 7 September 2011.

  40. 40.

    See Torreggiani and others v. Italy, App. No. 43517/09, 35315/10, 37818/10, 46882/09, 55400/09, 57875/09, 61535/09, 27 May 2013.

  41. 41.

    See Moiseyev v. Russia, App. No. 62936/00, 6 April 2009; Alver v. Estonia, App. No. 64812/01, 8 February 2006; Sulejmanovic v. Italy, App. No. 22635/03, 6 November 2009; Vasilescu v. Belgium, App. No. 64682/12, 20 April 2015; Neshkov and others v. Bulgaria, App. No. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12, 9717/13, 1 June 2015; Brânduşe v. Romania, App. No. 6586/03, 7 July 2009.

  42. 42.

    See Moiseyev v. Russia, App. No. 62936/00, 6 April 2009.

  43. 43.

    See Vasilescu v. Belgium, App. No. 64682/12, 20 April 2015.

  44. 44.

    See Neshkov and others v. Bulgaria, App. No. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12, 9717/13, 1 June 2015.

  45. 45.

    See Bragadireanu v. Romania, App. No. 22088/04, 6 March 2008; Canali v. France, App. No. 40119/09, 25 July 2013; Martzaklis and Others v. Greece, 20378/13, 9 October 2015; Ţicu v. Romania, App. No. 24575/10, 1 January 2014.

  46. 46.

    See Plathey v. France, App. No. 48337/09, 10 February 2012; Csüllög v. Hungary, App. No. 30042/08, 7 September 2011; X v. Turkey, App. No. 24626/09, 27 May 2013; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, App. No. 54825/00, 12 October 2005.

  47. 47.

    See X v. Turkey, App. No. 24626/09, 27 May 2013.

  48. 48.

    See Csüllög v. Hungary, App. No. 30042/08, 7 September 2011.

  49. 49.

    See El Shennawy v. France, App. No. 51246/08, 20 April 2011; Frerot v. France, App. No. 70204/01, 12 September 2007; Valasinas v. Lithuania, App. No. 44558/98, 24 October 2001; Lorsé And Others v. the Netherlands, App. No. 52750/99, 4 May 2003; Iwańczuk v. Poland, App. No. 25196/94, 15 February 2002.

  50. 50.

    See Valasinas v. Lithuania, App. No. 44558/98, 24 October 2001.

  51. 51.

    See Elefteriadis v. Romania, App. No. 38427/05, 25 April 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), App. No. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06, 10464/07, 13 October 2014; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, App. No. 54825/00, 12 October 2005; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 50390/99, 29 July 2003.

  52. 52.

    See McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 50390/99, 29 July 2003.

  53. 53.

    See Nazarenko v. Ukraine, App. No. 39483/98, 29 July 2003; Dankevich v. Ukraine, App. No. 40679/98, 29 July 2003; Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, App. No. 39042/97, 29 April 2003; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, App. No. 38812/97, 29 April 2003; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 40653/98, 7 July 2004.

  54. 54.

    See Piechowicz v. Poland, App. No. 20071/07, 17 July 2012; Horych v. Poland, App. No. 13621/08, 17 July 2012; Payet v. France, App. No. 19606/08, 20 April 2011; Khider v. France, App. No. 39364/05, 9 October 2009.

  55. 55.

    See Piechowicz v. Poland, App. No. 20071/07, 17 July 2012; Horych v. Poland, App. No. 13621/08, 17 July 2012.

  56. 56.

    See Tarariyeva v. Russia, App. No. 4353/03, 14 March 2007; Jasinska v. Poland, App. No. 28326/05, 1 September 2010; Ketreb v. France, App. No. 38447/09, 19 October 2012; De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, App. No. 8595/06, 6 March 2012; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 27229/95, 2 April 2001; Kilavuz v. Turkey, App. No. 8327/03, 21 January 2009; Coselav v. Turkey, App. No. 1413/07, 18 March 2013; Yuriy Illarionovich Shchokin v. Ukraine, App. No. 4299/03, 3 January 2014.

  57. 57.

    See Premininy v. Russia, App. No. 44973/04, 20 June 2011; D.F. v. Latvia, App. No. 11160/07, 29 January 2014; Indelicato v. Italy, App. No. 31143/96, 18 January 2002.

  58. 58.

    See Coselav v. Turkey, App. No. 1413/07, 18 March 2013.

  59. 59.

    Premininy v. Russia, App. No. 44973/04, 20 June 2011.

  60. 60.

    Action plan on execution of the pilot judgment of the ECHR on application nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 Ananyev and Others v. Russia, distributed by the Secretariat of the CoM, DH-DD(2012)1009, 29 October 2012.

  61. 61.

    See status of execution of István Gábor Kovács, CoM, last examined at its 1236th meeting (22–24 September 2015).

  62. 62.

    See Action Plan, communication from Bulgaria concerning the case of Neshkov and Others and the Kehayov group of cases against Bulgaria (Applications No. 36925/10, 41035/98), DH-DD(2015)755 rev, submitted on 8 August 2015, p. 6.

  63. 63.

    See status of execution of István Gábor Kovács, CoM, last examined at its 1236th meeting (22–24 September 2015).

  64. 64.

    Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR, H/Exec(2015)7, group of cases Bragadireanu v. Romania, 12 February 2015, p. 4. On the basis of data supplied by Romania’s National Prison Administration, the NGO APADOR-CH indicates that the average living space available is a little over 2 m2 per prisoner.

  65. 65.

    Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR, H/Exec(2015)7, Group of cases Bragadireanu v. Romania, 12 February 2015, pp. 5–6.

  66. 66.

    CoM, status of execution, Nisiotis v. Greece (App. No. 34704/08, 20 June 2011), last examined by the CoM at its 1230th meeting (9–11 June 2015).

  67. 67.

    CoM, communication from Italy concerning the case of Torreggiani and others against Italy (App. No. 43517/09), 27 May 2013, Action Plan presented by the Italian government, 27 November 2013.

  68. 68.

    CoM, status of execution of the Torreggiani v. Italy pilot judgment, last examined at the CoM 1214th meeting (2–4 December 2014).

  69. 69.

    Communication from an NGO (Public Verdict Foundation) in the Ananyev and Others v. Russia, 7 October 2013, CoM, considered at its 1193 meeting (4–6 March 2014), DH-DD(2014)44.

  70. 70.

    CoM, status of execution of the Ananyev and Others v. Russia judgment, last examined at the CoM 1201st meeting (3–5 June 2014).

  71. 71.

    Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR, H/Exec(2015)7, group of cases Bragadireanu v. Romania, 12 February 2015, p. 11.

  72. 72.

    See Action Plan, communication from Bulgaria concerning the case of Neshkov and Others and the Kehayov group of cases against Bulgaria, submitted on 8 August 2015, p. 13.

  73. 73.

    Communication from an NGO (APADOR-CH) in the Bragadireanu group of cases against Romania, 26 May 2014, CoM, DH-DD(2014)752.

Literature

  • Aebi, M.F., and N. Delgrande. 2015. SPACE I—Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2013. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostou, D., ed. 2013. The European Court of Human Rights: Implementing Strasbourg’s Judgments on Domestic Policy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostou, D., and A. Mungiu-Pippidi. 2014. Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter. European Journal of International Law 25 (1): 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. 2005. Supervising the Execution of Judgments Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights: The Challenges Facing the Committee of Ministers. In European Court of Human Rights: Remedies and Execution of Judgments, ed. T. Christou and J.-P. Raymond, 49–106. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantraine, G. 2015. French Prisons of Yesteryear and Today. Punishment and Society. 12 (1): 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Ministers. 2013. Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. 6th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers. 2012. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. 2015. Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 8th report. Doc.13864, September 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, A. 2006. Revision of the European Prison Rules, a Contextual Report. In European Prison Rules, 101–132. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 2010. Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan—Modalities for a Twin-Track Supervision System. CM/Inf/DH(2010) 37, 6 September 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forst, D. 2013. The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Limits and Ways Ahead. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law 7 (3): 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, S. 2015. The Effective Supervision of Prison Conditions. In Protecting Vulnerable Groups—The European Human Rights Framework, ed. F. Ippolito and S.I. Sánchez, 381–400. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg, T. 2011. European Rights in Europe: No Grounds for Complacency. Viewpoints by Thomas Hammarberg. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L.R., and E. Voeten. 2014. International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe. International Organization 68 (1): 77–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrecht, C. 2012. Implementing International Human Rights Law at Home: Domestic Politics and the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Review 13 (3): 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppälä, T. 2011. Explaining Imprisonment in Europe. European Journal of Criminology 8 (4): 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. 2000. Prisoners’ Rights in the Context of the ECHR. Punishment and Society 2 (3): 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marochini, M. 2009. The Ill-treatment of Prisoners in Europe: A Disease Diagnosed but not cured? Zb. Prav. Fak. Sveuč. Rij. 30 (2): 1108–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, S.K. 1996. Commentary. In Compliance with Judgments of International Courts, ed. M.K. Bulterman and M. Kuijer, 71–80. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J. 2006. The Impact of the Council of Europe’s ‘Torture Committee’ and the Evolution of Standard-Setting in Relation to Places of Detention. European Human Rights Law Review 2: 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrott, L. 2015. Tools of Persuasion: the Efforts of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights to Reform the Russian Pre-trial Detention System. Post-Soviet Affairs 31 (2): 136–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sicilianos, L.-A. 2014. The Involvement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Implementation of its Judgments: Recent Developments under Article 46. Netherlands Quarterly of. Human Rights 32 (3): 235–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitaropoulos, N. 2008. Supervising Execution of ECtHR Judgments Concerning Minorities—The Committee of Ministers’ Potentials and Constraints. Annuaire International des Droits de. L’Homme 3: 523–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S. 2015. Punishment, Legitimate Policies and Values: Penal Moderation, Dignity and Human Rights. Punishment and Society 17 (3): 397–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, F.G.E. 2001. Control of Execution of Decisions under the ECHR. Some Remarks on the Committee of Ministers’ Control of the Proper Implementation of Decisions Finding Violations of the Convention. In International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms, ed. G. Alfredsson, J. Grimheden, B. Ramchara, and A. de Zayas, 561–585. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voeten, E. 2014. Domestic Implementation of European Court of Human Rights Judgments: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter: A Reply to Dia Anagnostou and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi. European Journal of International Law 25 (1): 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Anagnostou, D., Skleparis, D. (2017). Human Rights in European Prisons: Can the Implementation of Strasbourg Court Judgments Influence Penitentiary Reform Domestically?. In: Daems, T., Robert, L. (eds) Europe in Prisons. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62250-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62250-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62249-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62250-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics