CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mai 2020

.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 240 May 2020 Korostelev v. Russia - 29290/10 Judgment 12.5.2020 [Section III] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Muslim prisoner reprimanded for performing acts of worship at night time in breach of prison schedule: violation Facts - The applicant, a practising Muslim, had been reprimanded on account of his misconduct in prison – namely, two acts of worship (“Salah”) at night time, when “sleep without interruption” was prescribed for all detainees. Law – Article 9: The applicant had been reprimanded for a breach of the prison schedule and for disregarding the prison guards’ orders to return to his sleeping place. The imposition of a disciplinary punishment on the applicant, even in such a lenient form as a reprimand, amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of religion. The question was whether the interference had been justified and necessary in a democratic society. It appeared that the only reason for disciplining the applicant had been the formal incompatibility of his actions with the prison schedule and the authorities’ attempt to ensure full and unconditional compliance with that schedule by every prisoner. Although the Court recognised the importance of prison discipline, it could not accept such a formalistic approach, which palpably disregarded the applicant’s individual situation and did not take into account the requirement of striking a fair balance between the competing private and public interests. It was of particular importance for the applicant to comply with his duty to perform acts of worship at the time prescribed by his religious belief. That duty had to be complied with every day, not least during Ramadan. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant’s adherence to acts of worship at night-time posed any risks to prison order or safety. The applicant had not used dangerous objects or sought to engage in collective worship in a large group together with other prisoners. Moreover, the applicant’s worship had not disturbed the prison population or the prison guards, because he had performed Salah while in solitary confinement, without any noise or other disturbing factors. Lastly, it did not appear that performing Salah had left the applicant exhausted or could have undermined his health or his ability to participate in criminal proceedings. The prison schedule did not explicitly set out “time for worship” or “personal time” which could be used at the discretion of prisoners as recommended by the European Prison Rules .   In the circumstances of the case no special arrangements on the part of the authorities would have been required to have respected the applicant’s wish to worship. Lastly, being a form of disciplinary punishment, the reprimand had not only decreased the applicant’s chances of early release, mitigation of the prison regime, or of obtaining a reward, but also had a chilling effect on other prisoners. The proportionality of that sanction had not been assessed by the domestic courts in a meaningful manner. The latter had confined their inquiry to whether or not the applicant’s conduct had breached the prison schedule. They had failed to identify the legitimate aim of the impugned interference in the applicant’s freedom of religion, or to carry out a balancing exercise. In the light of the above, the interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion could not be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Jakóbski v. Poland , 18429/06, 7   December 2010, Information Note 136 , and by contrast X.   v. Austria , 1753/63 , Commission decision of 15   February 1965, and Kovaļkovs v. Latvia (dec.), 35021/05 , 31   January 2012)   © 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