CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 juin 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197 June 2016 Biržietis v. Lithuania - 49304/09 Judgment 14.6.2016 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Absolute prohibition on growing a beard in prison: violation Facts – The applicant prisoner complained that he was prohibited from growing a beard, irrespective of its length or tidiness, by the internal rules of the prison where he served his sentence. His objection to the prohibition was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on the ground that a prisoner’s wish to grow a beard could not be considered a matter of fundamental rights unless linked to the exercise of a relevant right such as freedom of religion (which was not in issue in the applicant’s case). It further held that the prohibition could be justified as a necessary and proportionate measure in view of the prison authorities’ need to be able to identify prisoners quickly. Law – Article 8: The choice to grow a beard constituted a part of the applicant’s personality and individual identity. It fell within the ambit of private life and Article   8 was therefore applicable. While the Court was prepared to accept that the interference had a legal basis, it expressed reservations as to the existence of a legitimate aim. In particular, the Government had not showed how allowing the applicant (or other prisoners) to grow a beard could lead to “disorder and crime”. Nor had they argued that the prohibition on beards was aimed at ensuring respect for social norms and standards among prisoners. In any event, the Government had failed to demonstrate that the absolute prohibition on growing a beard, irrespective of its hygienic, aesthetic or other characteristics, and not allowing for any exceptions, was proportionate. Moreover, the prohibition at issue did not seem to affect other types of facial hair, such as moustaches or sideburns, thereby raising concerns of arbitrariness. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.   © 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