European Court of Human Rights
3 April 2012
Facts
The applicant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Between 2003 and 2006 he submitted 6 requests for temporary leave of absence (“prison leave”) on the grounds that he wished to carry out administrative tasks and take courses to gain qualifications. His requests were all refused by the Prison Board. The applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the first 2 refusals with the court, which declined jurisdiction to examine the application. That judgment was upheld by a higher court.
Complaint
The applicant submitted that he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the refusal of his requests for prison leave. He alleged a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
Article 6 (1) of the Convention was not applicable under its criminal head, as the proceedings concerning the prison system did not relate to determination of a “criminal charge”. The Court therefore had to consider whether the applicant had a “civil right”, to assess whether the procedural safeguards afforded by Article 6 (1) were applicable.
It first had to be determined whether the applicant had possessed a “right” to prison leave. The domestic legislation defined prison leave as permission to leave prison either for part of a day or for periods of 24 hours. This was a “privilege” which “might be granted” to prisoners in certain circumstances. It had clearly been the legislature’s intention to create a privilege in respect of which no remedy was provided. The competent authorities enjoyed discretion as to whether to grant leave, even where the prisoner concerned formally met the required criteria. As to the interpretation of the legislation by the domestic courts, the administrative courts had declined jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s application for judicial review. Accordingly, the applicant could not claim on arguable grounds to possess a “right” recognised in the domestic legal system.
Although the Court had recognised the legitimate aim of a policy of progressive social reintegration of persons sentenced to imprisonment, the Convention does not expressly provide for a right to prison leave. The same was true in relation to a possible principle of international law. Lastly, no consensus existed among the member states regarding the status of prison leave and the arrangements for granting it. Thus, the Court found Article 6 not applicable, and no violation was found.