Abstract
This Chapter looks into the manner in which the issue of prison overcrowding is addressed under the European Convention on Human Rights. It examines, in particular, the legal context in which the European Court of Human Rights leading case-law on the matter—Muršić v Croatia—has developed, and the effects which that case-law has created in the European legal landscape. In the context of this inquiry, the Chapter first analyses the concept of ‘prison overcrowding’. It finds that there is a lot of uncertainty over the main characteristics of that concept but that it may be best understood from the perspective of a ‘totality of conditions’ test, which focuses on the qualitative aspects of imprisonment rather than any pre-determined numerical criteria. The Chapter further provides an overview of the evolving Convention case-law concerning the rights of prisoners and, in particular, regarding the protection from prison overcrowding. In this connection, the Chapter analyses in detail the principles developed in the Muršić judgment. It finds that these principles are duly followed as the relevant law both in the Court’s subsequent processing of cases and at the wider European level, notably in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Chapter cautions, however, that this coherence in the case-law may not be sufficient to address the problem of prison overcrowding and that the European legislature and policy makers will need to reflect on the possibility of agreeing over the common binding minimum standards of material conditions of detention.
Opinions expressed are personal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 005, 4 November 1949.
- 2.
- 3.
The term ‘European prison law’ could be taken as encompassing, in particular, the rules and standards set out in the Court’s case-law, practice of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the provisions of the European Prison Rules (Recommendation Rec(2006)2-rev of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules, 1 July 2020), and also in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and other European (primarily the Council of Europe) materials, it being understood that some of these sources might be directly binding and some operate as the soft-law requirements. See further van Zyl Smit and Snacken (2011), and Kamber (2020), pp. 482–484.
- 4.
For the most comprehensive overview of the Court’s case-law on the prisoners’ rights see Guide on the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights: Prisoners’ rights, Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights (2021), available at www.echr.coe.int.
- 5.
See the dissenting opinion of Judge Sicilianos in the Chamber judgment Muršić v Croatia, Application no. 7334/13, judgment of 12 March 2015.
- 6.
Muršić supra note 5. The Chamber judgment (adopted by a six votes to one vote majority) found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of Mr Muršić’s imprisonment.
- 7.
Muršić v Croatia [GC], Application no. 7334/13, judgment of 20 October 2016.
- 8.
See infra, Sect. 5.
- 9.
- 10.
There is emerging convincing evidence showing that prison is in fact a failed institution of social order. See for instance Daw (2020). Note also that as soon as the prison became central to criminal punishment it became the focus of various reforms. See further O’Brein (1998); see also Howard (1777) and Vander Beken (2016).
- 11.
In reality the role of the prison is intended to protect society immediately by keeping the prisoners out of the wider society. See further, van Zyl Smit (2010), pp. 503–504.
- 12.
- 13.
Already some twenty years ago the rise in prison population globally in the international community has been labelled as ‘epidemic’. See further Harding (1998), pp. 3–7. This is, however, not to say that the ‘overuse’ is linked only to the number of prisoners placed in a prison system. The ‘overuse’ could also be measured through qualitative methods, such as where in a particular legal system is, as a matter of law and/or established practice, imprisonment is applied in contravention of the applicable principles of international and/or constitutional law relating to the right to liberty. See, for instance, ECtHR, Navalnyy v Russia [GC], Application no. 29580/12 et al., judgment of 15 November 2018. See also Schönteich (2013).
- 14.
Research has shown that the overuse of the prison and the rise in prison population poses significant threats to three dimensions of system performance: accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness. See further Mears (2008).
- 15.
Turner (1971).
- 16.
See further Rogan (2012).
- 17.
See, for instance, Daily Mail (2013) Dozens of Britain’s worst killers set to launch bids for freedom after European Court of Human Rights rules we DON’T have the right lock them up for life. Available at www.dailymail.co.uk. See also Uitz (2020) Hirst meets Burdov in Hungary’s New Year Resolution: The Hungarian Government Suspends the Enforcement of a Pilot Judgment. ECHR Blog, available at www.echrblog.com.
- 18.
On 24 and 25 April 2019 the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) organised a High-level Conference on prison overcrowding (funded together by the CoE and the European Commission), which aimed at taking stock of the issues surrounding the problem of prison overcrowding and providing some solutions for future reform. This was the most comprehensive high-level event in Europe on the issue of prison overcrowding. The conference proceedings and other materials are available at www.coe.int. See also European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on prison systems and conditions (2015/2062(INI).
- 19.
- 20.
See further Snacken and Beyens (1994), Maculan et al. (2013), Dünkel (2017), Aebi et al. (2019). See also Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE), available at www.wp.unil.ch/space.
- 21.
See further Penal Reform International (PRI) Global prison trends, available at www.penalreform.org; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2013), Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, United Nations : Vienna.
- 22.
See, for instance, Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States No.R (99)22 concerning Prison Overcrowding and Prison Population Inflation, 30 September 1999; Le Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (2018), Les droits fondamentaux à l’épreuve de la surpopulation carcérale Approche concrète sur la base de l’expérience du Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté, Éditions Dalloz: Paris.
- 23.
Haney (2012), le Roux-Kemp (2013). See also UNODC, WHO, UNAIDS and OHCHR joint statement on COVID-19 in prisons and other closed settings, 13 May 2020, available at www.who.int.
- 24.
CPT, Living space per prisoner in prison establishments: CPT standards, CPT/Inf (2015) 44, 15 December 2015, para 5.
- 25.
PRI (2012), Ten-Point Plan to Reduce Prison Overcrowding, p. 1.
- 26.
Loc. cit.; CDPC, White Paper on prison overcrowding, PC-CP (2015) 6 rev 7, 30 June 2016, paras 10–11 and 20; European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions, PE 611.008, December 2017, p. 126; UNODC supra note 21, p. 8.
- 27.
CDPC supra note 26, para 10; European Parliament supra note 18, para 5; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2019), Criminal detention conditions in the European Union: rules and reality, pp. 17–19.
- 28.
CDPC supra note 26, para 11; UNODC supra note 21, p. 8; Aebi and Tiago (2021), p. 70.
- 29.
UNODC supra note 21, p. 8.
- 30.
Fédération des Associations Réflexion-Action, Prison et Justice (FARAPEJ) (2018), Contre-rapport : Pour en finir vraiment avec la surpopulation carcérale, pp. 11–15.
- 31.
Moolenaar (2019).
- 32.
Lappi-Seppälä (2010), p. 44.
- 33.
This is also a requirement flowing from Rule 18.3 of the European Prison Rules (EPR).
- 34.
- 35.
For an overview of the domestic standards in the European Union see FRA supra note 27. The relevant global international standards are set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Resolution of the UN General Assembly, A/RES/70/175, 8 January 2016 – Nelson Mandela Rules).
- 36.
Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu case C-128/18, 15 October 2019.
- 37.
This is often forgotten when juxtaposing the Muršić approach and other CoE materials. For instance, Pinto de Albuquerque and Ciuffoletti (2016).
- 38.
CDPC supra note 26, paras 10–11.
- 39.
CPT supra note 24, paras 21–23.
- 40.
This is the following: (1) 6 sq. m. of living space for a single-occupancy cell and sanitary facility; (2) 4 sq. m. of living space per prisoner in a multiple-occupancy cell and fully partitioned sanitary facility; (3) at least 2 m. between the walls of the cell; (4) at least 2.5 m. between the floor and the ceiling of the cell.
- 41.
Liddell (2019).
- 42.
ECtHR, Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom [GC], Application no. 66069/09 et al., judgment of 9 July 2013.
- 43.
- 44.
See Daily Mail supra note 17.
- 45.
See, by contrast, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, and Article 5(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969. Note, however, that the Convention contains a detailed list of guarantees relating to the deprivation of liberty (Article 5) and regulates certain issues concerning the work in prison (Article 4(3)(a)). Note also that the Convention system explicitly prohibits imprisonment for debt in Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto (ETS No. 046, 16 September 1963).
- 46.
Note, however, that soon after the Second World War the proper management of prisons—influenced, inter alia, by the concern for human dignity—became a preoccupation of international law. See United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 30 August 1955.
- 47.
Liddell (2019), pp. 492–493.
- 48.
Ibid., p. 505.
- 49.
See further Kamber (2020), pp. 470–473.
- 50.
ECtHR, Kalashnikov v Russia, Application no. 47095/99, judgment of 15 July 2002.
- 51.
ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France [GC], Application no. 59450/00, judgment of 4 July 2006.
- 52.
ECtHR, Khoroshenko v Russia [GC], Application no. 41418/04, judgment of 30 June 2015.
- 53.
ECtHR, Enea v Italy [GC], Application no. 74912/01, judgment of 17 September 2009.
- 54.
ECtHR, Stummer v Austria [GC], Application no. 37452/02, judgment of 7 July 2011.
- 55.
ECtHR, Tomov and Others v Russia, Application nos. 18255/10 et al., judgment of 9 April 2019.
- 56.
ECtHR, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v Russia [GC], Application nos. 60367/08 et al., judgment of 24 January 2017.
- 57.
ECtHR, Hirst v the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], Application no. 74025/01, judgment of 6 October 2005, paras 69–70.
- 58.
ECtHR, Klibisz v Poland, Application no. 2235/02, judgment of 4 October 2016, para 354.
- 59.
See ECtHR, Valašinas v Lithuania, Application no. 44558/98, judgment of 24 July 2001, and Kalashnikov supra note 50 (where the Court found a violation of Article 3).
- 60.
The Court does not systematically process detailed statistics concerning the conditions of detention cases. The information on the number of violations found has been extracted from HUDOC and is not necessarily precise. The number of pending cases was obtained from the relevant Registry services. An earlier overview of the statistics is provided in O’Leary (2019).
- 61.
According to the latest available statistics, there are 65,800 applications pending before the Court. The information is available at www.echr.coe.int.
- 62.
On pilot judgment procedures see further, for instance, Leach et al. (2010) and Haider (2013). See also Information note issued by the Registrar on the pilot judgment procedure, available at www.echr.coe.int.
- 63.
ECtHR, Orchowski v Poland, Application no. 17885/04, judgment of 22 October 2009; Norbert Sikorski v Poland, Application no. 17599/05, judgment of 22 October 2009.
- 64.
ECtHR, Ananyev and Others v Russia, Application nos. 42525/07 et al., judgment of 10 January 2012.
- 65.
ECtHR, Torreggiani and Others v Italy, Application nos. 43517/09 et al., judgment of 8 January 2013.
- 66.
ECtHR, Neshkov and Others v Bulgaria, Application nos. 36925/10, judgment of 27 January 2015.
- 67.
ECtHR, Varga and Others v Hungary, Application nos. 14097/12 et al., judgment of 10 March 2015.
- 68.
ECtHR, Rezmiveș and Others v Romania, Application nos. 61467/12 et al., judgment of 25 April 2017.
- 69.
ECtHR, Sukachov v Ukraine, Application no. 14057/17, judgment of 30 January 2020.
- 70.
ECtHR, Mandić and Jović v Slovenia, Application nos. 5774/10, judgment of 22 October 2011; ECtHR, Štrucl and Others v Slovenia, Application nos. 5903/10, judgment of 20 October 2011.
- 71.
ECtHR, Samaras and Others v Greece, Application no. 11463/09, judgment of 28 February 2012; ECtHR, Tzamalis and Others v Greece, Application no. 15894/09, judgment of 4 December 2012; ECtHR, Al. K. v Greece, Application no. 63542/11, judgment of 11 December 2014.
- 72.
ECtHR, Vasilescu v Belgium, Application no. 64682/12, judgment of 25 November 2014.
- 73.
ECtHR, Shishanov v the Republic of Moldova, Application no. 11353/06, judgment of 15 September 2015.
- 74.
ECtHR, Petrescu v Portugal, Application no. 23190/17, judgment of 3 December 2019.
- 75.
ECtHR, J.M.B. and Others v France, Application nos. 9671/15 et al., judgment of 30 January 2020.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
See further Kamber (2020), pp. 478–479.
- 79.
See, for instance, Campos (2015). See further the follow-up decisions to the cited pilot judgments: ECtHR, Łomiński v Poland (dec.), Application no. 33502/09, 12 December 2010; ECtHR, Shmelev and Others v Russia (dec.), Application nos. 441743/17 et al., 17 March 2020; ECtHR, Stella and Others v Italy (dec.), Application nos. 4169/09, 16 September 2014; Atanasov and Apostolov v Bulgaria (dec.), Application nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17, 27 June 2017; ECtHR, Domján v Hungary (dec.), Application no. 5433/17, 14 November 2017; ECtHR, Dîrjan and Ştefan v Romania (dec.), Application nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020, and ECtHR, Polgar v Romania, Application no. 39412/19, 20 July 2021.
- 80.
Ruffin v Commmonwealth – 62 Va 790 (1871), 1026–1027. This doctrine would suggest that the prisoner is in a state of ‘penal servitude’ and that the state freely decides how to treat him or her. Moreover, according to this understanding, any bill of rights does not apply to him or her. The only rights that prisoners may have are those which the law of the state ‘in its benignity accords to them, but not the rights of freemen’. See further, for the evolution of the Convention law on this point, ECtHR, Golder v the United Kingdom, Application no. 4451/70, judgment of 21 February 1975, and infra Sect. 4.2.
- 81.
See further Muršić supra note 7, paras 16 and 18–20.
- 82.
Ibid., para 21.
- 83.
CPT supra note 24.
- 84.
Sicilianos supra note 5.
- 85.
Muršić supra note 7, paras 142–143. See also ECtHR, Ulemek v Croatia, Application no. 21613/16, judgment of 31 October 2019.
- 86.
If not specifically indicated otherwise, this analysis concerns the Muršić Grand Chamber judgment.
- 87.
See, for instance, ECtHR, Idalov v Russia [GC], Application no. 5826/03, judgment of 22 May 2012, paras 96–102, principally dealing with the manner of calculation of the length of pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the Convention. See also ECtHR, Georgia v Russia (I) [GC], Application no. 13255/07, judgment of 3 July 2014, paras 192–205, concerning various events arising out of the political tensions between Russia and Georgia.
- 88.
See further Mavronicola (2012).
- 89.
Muršić supra note 7, para 97.
- 90.
See supra Sect. 3.
- 91.
Muršić supra note 7, para 98. Note that the Muršić judgment relies on ECtHR, Bouyid v Belgium [GC], Application no. 23380/09, judgment of 28 September 2015, where the concept of human dignity was used to relativise any relevance of the minimum threshold of severity in instances where conduct of law-enforcement officers vis-à-vis an individual diminishes that individual’s human dignity (such as in instances of the use of force which is not strictly necessary).
- 92.
Muršić supra note 7, para 99.
- 93.
On possible other forms of responsibility see Rogan (2012).
- 94.
The same is provided in Rule 4 EPR.
- 95.
See for instance, ECtHR, Karalevičius v Lithuania, Application no. 53254/99, judgment of 7 April 2005, para 36; ECtHR, Apostu v Romania, no. 22765/12, 3 February 2015, para 79.
- 96.
ECtHR, Varga and Others supra note 67 para 76.
- 97.
This included the pre-Muršić pilot and quasi-pilot judgments referred to in Sect. 3, and the Grand Chamber Idalov case (supra note 87). See further Muršić supra note 7, para 107.
- 98.
See further ECtHR, Ananyev and Others supra note 64, para 145.
- 99.
See, for instance, ECtHR, Cotleţ v Romania (no. 2), Application no. 49549/11, judgment of 1 October 2013, paras 34 and 36.
- 100.
Supra Sect. 2.
- 101.
The EPR (see Rule 18.3) and the Nelson Mandela Rules (see Rule 13) do not contain any provision on the number of square metres that should be allocated to a detainee. There is also no EU legislation on the matter. At the same time, the standards of the monitoring bodies differ: the CPT devised its “rule of thumb” of a minimum of 4 sq. m of personal space (CPT supra note 24, 39–40), while, for instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) set that standard at 3.4 sq. m (see ICRC (2013) Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons, p. 18).
- 102.
The FRA study (supra note 27, pp. 17–19) has found that sixteen EU member States have laws or regulations specifying national standards of minimum cell space per detainee. These standards range from 3 to 6 sq. m. In France, only a maximum cell space per prisoner of 11 sq. m is specified.
- 103.
See supra note 97.
- 104.
See supra note 24, 39–40 and 101.
- 105.
Muršić supra note 7, paras 109–110.
- 106.
Idalov case supra note 87, para 101.
- 107.
The distinction drawn in Muršić between the role of the CPT and the Court, and the consequential effect of that distinction as regards the minimum standard of personal space, was the central point of criticism of the judgment by the dissenting Judges Sajó, López Guerra, Wojtyczek, Lazarova Trajkovska, De Gaetano, Grozev and Pinto de Albuquerque. On the role of the CPT, including its relationship with the Court, see Murdoch (2006), and Bicknell et al. (2018).
- 108.
Muršić supra note 7, paras 114–115.
- 109.
On this point, the Court followed the relevant CPT methodology (see further CPT supra note 24).
- 110.
See further Muršić supra note 7, paras 116–121.
- 111.
See supra Sect. 2.
- 112.
Muršić supra note 7, paras 122–126.
- 113.
On the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties in this context see Muršić paras 127–128.
- 114.
The requisite minimum standard on the freedom of movement is set out in Muršić para 133.
- 115.
It is important to note that in this context the Court referred not only to its case-law but also to the relevant international standards as established in the EPR and the Nelson Mandela Rules, as well as in the work of the CPT and the ICRC (see Muršić para 134).
- 116.
Ibid., para 138.
- 117.
Ibid., paras 139–140.
- 118.
See further ECtHR, Rezmiveș and Others supra note 68 para 77; ECtHR, Petrescu supra note 74 para 100; ECtHR, Sukachov supra note 69 para 86; ECtHR, J.M.B. and Others supra note 75 para 255.
- 119.
The relevant numbers are drawn from a HUDOC analysis. There are, however, no specific statistics available for this particular group of cases.
- 120.
CDPC CM(2020)17-add2, pp. 9–10.
- 121.
CPT 26th General Report, CPT/Inf(2017)5-part, 20 April 2017, para 56.
- 122.
See, for instance, CPT Ukraine: Visit 2017, CPT/Inf (2018) 41, 27 July 2018, para 57; CPT North Macedonia: Visit 2016, CPT/Inf (2017) 30, 20 March 2017, para 23.
- 123.
Supra note 36.
- 124.
On the principles of the CJEU case-law relating to conditions of detention and the EAW cooperation see Korenica (2016).
- 125.
Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu, paras 70–79 and 85.
- 126.
See supra note 9.
- 127.
See further Armstrong (2018).
- 128.
For the moment there does not appear to be a political will to engage with any legislative initiative at the EU level; see Council of the European Union, Outcome of 3816th Council meeting, 12574/21, 7 October 2021, p. 3.
References
Aebi MF, Tiago MM (2021) SPACE I - 2020 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: prison populations. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Aebi MF et al (2019) Prisons in Europe 2005-2015 – volumes 1 and 2. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Albrecht HJ (2012) Prison overcrowding – finding effective solutions: strategies and best practices against overcrowding in correctional facilities. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg
Arden M (2019) Dignity and rights: should these concepts be linked up? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 23–33
Armstrong S (2018) Securing prison through human rights: unanticipated implications of rights-based penal governance. HJCJ 57(3):401–421
Bicknell C, Evans M, Morgan R (2018) Preventing torture in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Campos A (2015) Le Conte de deux cités ou la responsabilité partagée dans l’application de la Convention : l’exemple Torreggiani. In: López Guerra et al (eds) El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: una visión desde dentro: en homenaje al Juez Josep Casadevall. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 191–197
Chung SY (2000) Prison overcrowding: standards in determining eighth amendment violations. FLR 68(6):2351–2400
Cliquennois G, Birch P (2020) Prison overcrowding: examining the problem through the prism of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Birch P, Sicard LA (eds) Prisons and community corrections: critical issues and emerging controversies. Routledge, London, pp 43–56
Coyle A (2009) A human rights approach to prison management: handbook for prison staff, 2nd edn. International Centre for Prison Studies, London
Daw C (2020) Justice on trial: radical solutions for a system at breaking point. Bloomsbury, London
Dreyer E (2017) Un an de droit européen des droits de l’homme en matière pénale : (janvier - décembre 2016). JurisClasseur 29(4):18–23
Dünkel F (2017) European penology: the rise and fall of prison population rates in Europe in times of migrant crises and terrorism. EJC 14(6):629–653
Falxa J (2015) Traitement inhumain ou dégradant : présomption en cas de surpopulation pénitentiaire. Recueil-Dalloz 191(15):866
Favuzza F (2017) Torreggiani and prison overcrowding in Italy. HRLR 17(1):153–173
Graziani F (2018) Prison overcrowding in Italy: the never ending story? RJSS 1:53–68
Haider D (2013) The pilot-judgment procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. Brill, Leiden
Haney C (2012) Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. TPJ:1–24
Harding RM (1998) In the belly of the beast: a comparison of the evolution and status of prisoners’ rights in the United States and Europe. GJICL 27(1):3–56
Howard J (1777) The state of the prisons in England and Wales. William Eyres, Warrington
Kamber (2020) Remedies for breaches of prisoners’ rights in the European Prison Rules. NJECL 11(4):467–488
Keiber S (2016) Anhaltung in Zellen mit unter 3 m2 an Raum pro Häftling: Muršić gg. Kroatien, Urteil vom 20.10.2016, Grosse Kammer, Bsw. Nr. 7334/13. NLMR 25(5):406–411
Korenica F (2016) No more unconditional “mutual trust” between member States: an analysis of the landmark decision of the CJEU in Aranyosi and Căldăraru. EHRLR 5:542–555
Lappi-Seppälä T (2010) Causes of prison overcrowding. In: Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Workshop on Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities, Conference proceedings, p 44
le Roux-Kemp A (2013) Overcrowding in prisons: a health risk in need of (re)consideration. HLR 21(2):33–38
Leach P (2017) Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Leach P et al (2010) Responding to systemic human rights violations: an analysis of ‘Pilot Judgments’ of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact at national level. Intersentia, Antwerp
Liddell R (2019) Are the Convention’s authors turning in their grave: European judges and prisoners’ rights? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 491–505
Maculan A et al (2013) Prison in Europe: overview and trends. Antigone, Rome
Mavronicola N (2012) What is an absolute right’? Deciphering absoluteness in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. HRLR 12(4):723–758
Mears DP (2008) Accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in corrections: shining a light on the black box of prison systems. CPP 7(1):143–152
Moolenaar D (2019) Correlation between crime rates and imprisonment, presentation at the high-level conference on prison overcrowding. Council of Europe
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. EHRLR 2:158–179
Nussberger A (2019) Three square meters of human dignity? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 669–686
O’Brein P (1998) The prison on the continent. In: Morris N, Rothman DJ (eds) The Oxford history of the prison: the practice of punishment in western society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 178–201
O’Leary S (2019) Conditions of detention in the case-law of the two European courts. In: Highlevel Conference on prison overcrowding, Conference proceedings
Pinto de Albuquerque P, Ciuffoletti S (2016) A question of space. Overcrowding, dignity and resocialization from Strasbourg to Italy. In: European Prison Litigation Network, The protection of prisoners’ rights in Europe, Conference proceedings, pp 80–103
Roets D (2021) Conditions de détention en France : double ricochet de l’arrêt J.M.B. et autres c. France : (obs. sous Cass. (fr.) (ch. crim.), 8 juillet 2020 (2 arrêts) et Cons. const. (fr.), décision n° 2020-858/859 QPC, 2 octobre 2020). RTDDL 32(125):141–152
Rogan M (2012) Dealing with overcrowding in prisons: contrasting judicial approaches from the USA and Ireland. IJ 47:195–202
Schönteich M (2013) The overuse of pre-trial detention: causes and consequences. Crim Justice Matters 92:18–19
Sicilianos L-A, Kostopoulou M-A (2019) The individual application under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Simon D (2018) Droits fondamentaux dans l’Etat d’émission : note. JurisClasseur 28(10):25–27
Snacken S, Beyens K (1994) Sentencing and prison overcrowding. EJCPR 2:84–99
Sudre F (2016) 3 m2 ou l’espace vital minimum par détenu : CEDH, gr. ch., 20 oct. 2016, n° 7334/13, Mursic c. Croatie. JCP 90(46):2085
Tulkens F (2017) Cellule collective et espace personnel : un arrêt en trompe-l’oeil (obs. sous Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., arrêt Muršić c. Croatie, 20 octobre 2016). RTDH 28(112):989–1004
Turner WB (1971) Establishing the rule of law in prisons: a manual for prisoners’ rights litigation. SLR 23(2):473–518
van Zyl Smit D (2010) Regulation of prison conditions. Crime Justice 39:503–563
van Zyl Smit D, Appleton C (2019) Life imprisonment: a global human rights analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
van Zyl Smit D, Snacken S (2011) Principles of European prison law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
van Zyl Smit D, Weatherby P, Creighton S (2014) Whole life sentences and the tide of European Human Rights Jurisprudence: what is to be done? HRLR 14(1):59–84
Vander Beken T (2016) The role of prison in Europe: travelling in the footsteps of John Howard. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kamber, K. (2022). Prison Overcrowding and the Developing Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Burbano Herrera, C., Haeck, Y. (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11483-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11484-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)