CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 février 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 193 February 2016 Meier v. Switzerland - 10109/14 Judgment 9.2.2016 [Section III] Article 4 Article 4-3-a Work required of detainees Continuing obligation on prisoner to work after reaching retirement age: no violation Facts – The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He submitted a request for exemption from the work he was required to do (colouring mandalas, cleaning his cell and carving driftwood sculptures), which was refused. In May 2012 he was placed under a stricter prison regime confining him to his cell and had his television and computer confiscated for fourteen days, on account of his refusal to work. That decision was subsequently revoked. Before the Court the applicant complained of being required to work while serving his sentence despite having reached retirement age. Law – Article 4 This was the first case in which the Court had had to address the issue of the requirement for a prisoner to work after reaching retirement age. Refusing to perform the work assigned to him constituted an offence for which the applicant would have to face the consequences, as demonstrated by the imposition of a stricter prison regime and the confiscation of his television and computer for fourteen days. Even though that decision had subsequently been revoked, the penalty appeared relatively harsh. In any event, taking the definition of forced or compulsory labour set out in in Convention No. 29 of the International Labour Organization (ILO)as a starting-point for the interpretation of Article   4 §   2 of the Convention, there was no doubt that the applicant had been performing work “under the menace of [a] penalty and for which [he had] not offered himself voluntarily”. The question remained whether the work performed by the applicant was work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article   5 of the Convention. That question was to be examined in the light of the aim, nature and extent of the work imposed and the manner in which it had to be performed. A prisoner’s duty to continue working even after retirement age could be considered to form part of efforts to reduce the harmful impact of imprisonment. Suitable and reasonable work could help structure everyday life and maintain an appropriate level of activity, goals which were important for the well-being of long-term prisoners. As to the nature of the work carried out by prisoners who had reached retirement age, the requirement did not apply to all prisoners to an equal extent but was tailored, depending on the circumstances, to prisoners’ abilities and especially to their capacity for work and their state of health. Moreover, persons with physical difficulties were only assigned light work, usually on a reduced basis. Prisoners who were certified by a doctor as being unfit for work were exempted from compulsory work. As to the specific situation of the applicant, the work assigned to him appeared to comply with these guidelines, as he was required only to take part in supervised work which included colouring mandalas, cleaning his cell and carving driftwood sculptures. Such activities were wholly appropriate to his age and physical capacities. Furthermore, he worked for only about three hours a day. He was placed, together with other prisoners who had reached retirement age, in the “dependent and retired prisoners wing” and was paid for his work. In the absence of sufficient consensus among the Council of Europe member States on the requirement for prisoners to work beyond retirement age, the national authorities enjoyed a considerable margin of appreciation. Rule 105.2 of the European Prison Rules was not necessarily to be interpreted as completely prohibiting the member States from requiring prisoners who had reached retirement age to work. Consequently, the work performed by the applicant while in detention, including that carried out after he reached retirement age, could be considered “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” within the meaning of Article   4 §   3 (a) of the Convention and did not amount to “forced or compulsory labour”. In view of the foregoing considerations and the fact that the applicant did not complain of the manner in which he had to perform the work assigned to him, there had been no violation of Article   4. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes