BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ELH AND PBH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 32094/96 [1982] ECHR 13 (22 October 1982) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1982/13.html Cite as: [1982] ECHR 13 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
Application No. 32094/96
Application No. 32568/96
Mrs G.H. THUNE, President
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the applications introduced on 15 April 1996 and 2 January 1996 by E.L.H. and P.B.H. against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 July 1996 and 8 August 1996 under file No. 32094/96 and No. 32568/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, who are married, are British nationals born in 1963 and 1959 respectively. The second applicant is serving a term of twenty years' imprisonment in H.M. Prison Swaleside. The applicants are represented by Mr. Simon Creighton, a solicitor of the Prisoners Advice Service.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:
On 20 February 1989 the second applicant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. On 2 February 1992 he absconded from prison custody.
On 27 October 1992 he married the first applicant, who was receiving fertility treatment as she had difficulty in conceiving. In March 1994 the first applicant underwent exploratory surgery and it was discovered that she required major surgery on her fallopian tube. This surgery was scheduled for January 1995.
On 9 August 1994 the second applicant was rearrested and returned to prison custody.
On 30 August 1994 the first applicant applied to the Home Secretary for the right to have conjugal visits. The application was rejected by the Director General of the Prison Service on 12 October 1994.
In January 1995 the first applicant was admitted to hospital. However, the consultant gynaecologist decided not to operate on her, as the surgery which had been planned would have increased the prospect of conception for only a short period of time and the two applicants were not in a position to attempt conception as the second applicant was in prison.
On 17 February 1995 the second applicant was given a second sentence of 14 years' imprisonment to run consecutively with the first. On 4 October 1995 the second sentence was reduced to twelve years, to be served consecutively.
On 4 January 1996 the second applicant submitted an application for conjugal visits. The first applicant submitted a further application on 9 January 1996 and asked her Member of Parliament for support.
On 19 January 1996 the Prison Governor refused the second applicant's application on the basis that there was no statutory provision for such visits to take place.
On 23 January 1996 the second applicant also asked for his M.P.'s support.
On 4 February 1996 the Director General of the Prison Service informed the applicants' M.P. that conjugal visits were not allowed in England and Wales.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Articles 3, 8 and 12 of the Convention, taken on their own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they are not allowed conjugal visits in order to procreate. Although artificial insemination is not ruled out in the case of prisoners, the applicants have submitted evidence to the effect that the Catholic Church of which both are followers does not approve of this option.
2. The applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they do not have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of their Convention rights.
THE LAW
1. The Commission, having regard to the connection between the two cases and the similar nature of the issues raised, considers it appropriate to order the joinder of the present applications under Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.
2. The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the Convention that they are not allowed conjugal visits in prison.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Furthermore, Article 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention provides as follows:
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."
The Commission considers that it is particularly important for prisoners to keep and develop family ties in order to be able better to cope with life in prison and prepare for their return to the community. It, therefore, notes with sympathy the reform movements in several European countries to improve prison conditions by facilitating "conjugal visits".
However, the Commission recalls its case-law to the effect that, although the refusal of such visits constitutes an interference with the right to respect for one's family life under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, for the present time it must be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder or crime under the second paragraph of that provision. Moreover, according to the same case-law, an interference with family life which is justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention cannot at the same time constitute a violation of Article 12 (Art. 12) (No. 17142/90, Dec. 10.7.91, unpublished).
The Commission considers that the same conclusions should be reached under Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the Convention in the present case, despite the exceptional circumstances invoked by the applicants. Thus, although the first applicant requires major surgery to be able to conceive and this surgery can only be performed when the couple are in a position to attempt conception, domestic law, as the applicants themselves accept, does not exclude artificial insemination in the case of prisoners. Moreover, although the applicants claim that the artificial insemination option is not open to them because they are practising Catholics, the Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention, which protects the freedom to manifest one's religious beliefs, does not guarantee the right to be exempted from rules which apply generally and neutrally, such as rules prohibiting "conjugal visits" in prisons (cf., mutatis mutandis, No. 10358/83, Dec. 15.12.83, D.R. 37 p. 142).
The Commission, therefore, considers that no appearance of a violation of Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the Convention is disclosed. As a result, this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded and must be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicants complain that the refusal to allow conjugal visits in prison amounts to treatment prohibited under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
However, the Commission recalls that, in order to fall within the scope of this provision, the matter complained of must attain a minimum level of severity (No. 10142/82, Dec. 8.7.85, D.R. 42, p. 86). This has not occurred in the circumstances of the present case. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
4. The applicants complain of discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights under Articles 3, 8 and 12 (Art. 3, 8, 12) of the Convention contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) thereof.
Insofar as the applicants can be deemed to complain that they have less possibilities to procreate than persons who are not detained, the Commission considers that the difference in treatment in question is the direct result of a lawfully imposed prison sentence and, as a result, has a reasonable and objective justification. Moreover, it has not been shown that there exists no reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, since the applicants have the possibility to apply for artificial insemination facilities.
Insofar as the applicants can be deemed to complain that they are de facto discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, the Commission finds that it is within a State's margin of appreciation for its authorities to consider that the particularly exacting demands of discipline and order in prison require that no distinctions should be made between prisoners insofar as "conjugal visits" are concerned. As a result, the difference in treatment between prisoners whose religious beliefs allow for artificial insemination and those whose religious beliefs do not has an objective and reasonable justification and no lack of reasonable proportionality has been established.
It follows that no appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and 12 (Art. 14+3+8+12) is disclosed. This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
5. The applicants complain under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention that they do not have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of their Convention rights.
The Commission recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, the right to an effective remedy before a national authority under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention can only be claimed by someone who has an "arguable claim" to be a victim of a violation of a right recognised by the Convention (No. 10427/83, Dec. 12.5.86, D.R. 47, p. 85). However, this is not the applicants' case.
It follows that no appearance of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention is disclosed. This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATIONS N° 32094/96 AND N° 32568/96;
by a majority,
M.-T. SCHOEPFER
G.H. THUNE
