issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 397 (2016)

06.12.2016

Rejection by authorities of prisoner’s request to attend mother’s funeral

was unjustified
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Kanalas v. Romania (application no. 20323/14) the
European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, and
a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
The case concerned the conditions in which Mr Kanalas was held in the prisons of Oradea and
Rahova, and the rejection by the prison administration of his request for leave in order to attend his
mother’s funeral.
The Court found – as it had already found in respect of the same prisons – that the conditions of the
applicant’s detention breached Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court reiterated that the right to prison leave was not guaranteed as such by the Convention
and that it was for the national authorities to examine the merits of each request. In the
circumstances of the case, the Court took the view that the reasons given by the national authorities
when refusing to grant Mr Kanalas leave to attend his mother’s funeral did not suffice to show that
the interference in question was “necessary in a democratic society”. As a result, his right to respect
for private and family life had been breached.

Principal facts
The applicant, Florian Kanalas, was born in 1969. Since 25 April 2016 he has been imprisoned in Satu
Mare (Romania).
In 2011 Mr Kanalas was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison on a charge of attempted murder;
his sentence was later reduced to 10 years. He was held in the prisons of Oradea and Rahova, and he
complained about the conditions of his detention.
In 2014 Mr Kanalas asked the governor of Oradea prison to grant him leave so that he could attend
his mother’s funeral, but his request was rejected on the grounds, in particular, that his remaining
sentence left to serve was too long and that he had already been rewarded in the same month. He
unsuccessfully filed a criminal complaint for abuse of authority against the governor of Oradea
prison.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kanalas
complained about the conditions in which he was held in the prisons of Oradea and Rahova. Relying

1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Kanalas complained about the refusal of
the prison authorities to grant him permission to attend his mother’s funeral.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 March 2014.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
András Sajó (Hungary), President,
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal),
Egidijus Kūris (Lithuania),
Iulia Motoc (Romania),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Marko Bošnjak (Slovenia),

and also Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 3
The Court noted that Mr Kanalas had alleged in particular that he had endured situations of
overcrowding in Oradea and Rahova prisons. It had previously found that the conditions of
detention in Romanian prisons, particularly with regard to overcrowding and poor hygiene,
constituted a structural problem.
The Court observed that Mr Kanalas’ allegations about a lack of appropriate lighting and ventilation,
and the poor quality of the food, reflected actual conditions that it had already observed in the past
as regards the prisons in question.
Having regard in particular to the fact that he had personal cell space of less than 3 sq. m, together
with the length of the deprivation of liberty, Mr Kanalas had experienced detention conditions which
were above the threshold of seriousness under Article 3, having been subjected to hardship
exceeding the inevitable level of suffering associated with detention. There had thus been a violation
of Article 3.

Article 8
The Court noted that the interference in question had been in accordance with the law
(sections 98(1) and 99(1) of Law no. 254/2013). In addition, taking into account the seriousness of
the crime committed, punishable by a heavy prison sentence, this interference pursued a legitimate
aim because it sought to prevent Mr Kanalas from using leave to commit offences or to cause a
breach of the peace. The Court then examined whether this measure was necessary in a democratic
society.
As regards the offence for which Mr Kanalas had been sentenced and the length of his prison
sentence, the Court had previously recognised the legitimate aim of a policy of gradual social
rehabilitation of prisoners. The Court had found that measures of temporary leave could contribute
to the social rehabilitation of prisoners, even where they had been convicted of violent crimes. In
addition, in cases also concerning the question of prison leave for family reasons, it had not attached
paramount weight to the offence of which the applicants in question had been convicted.
Moreover, the Court noted that Mr Kanalas had already been rewarded on numerous occasions for
his conduct and that the head of the prison in which he was held had been in favour of granting his
request. The Court observed that, according to the internal procedure established by the National
Prison Service, the principle of limiting rewards to one per month did not apply in the case of

2
permission for prison leave to attend the funeral of a family member. According to the legislation,
the fact that Mr Kanalas had just been rewarded in March 2014 should not have counted
against him.
Lastly, the Court observed that the prison administration had not examined the possibility of
providing Mr Kanalas with an escort to the place of the funeral.
The Court concluded that the national authorities had not weighed in the balance the various
interests at stake, namely Mr Kanalas’ right to respect for his family life, on the one hand, and public
safety, or the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other.
The Court reiterated that the right to prison leave was not guaranteed as such by the Convention
and that it was for the national authorities to examine the merits of each request. In the
circumstances of the case, the Court took the view that the reasons given by the national authorities
when refusing to grant Mr Kanalas leave to attend his mother’s funeral did not suffice to show that
the interference in question was “necessary in a democratic society”. As a result there had been a
violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.

The judgment is available only in French.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHRpress.
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.