 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Epistatu v. Romania - 29343/10 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 958 (24 September 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/958.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 958 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 166
August-September 2013
Epistatu v. Romania - 29343/10
Judgment 24.9.2013 [Section III] See: [2013] ECHR 855
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Right to education
Inability to complete high-school education while serving prison sentence: inadmissible
Facts - In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a breach of his right to education in that he had been forced to abandon his last year of high school in order to serve a prison sentence and the prison authorities had not allowed him to complete his high-school education in prison.
Law - Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterated that being prevented from continuing in full-time education during lawful detention after conviction by a court cannot be construed as a deprivation of the right to education within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Nor did that provision impose an obligation on prison authorities to set up ad hoc courses for prisoners.
The applicant had been forced to abandon his full-time high-school education only after he was detained following a lawful conviction by a competent court and following criminal proceedings that did not appear arbitrary. In addition, during his detention his requests to be enrolled in and allowed to finish his high-school education were examined by the prison authorities, and he was informed that the prison facilities did not have the resources to arrange the courses requested. The reasons provided did not fall outside the legal framework regulating the provision of courses for detainees. Moreover, the applicant had been allowed to enrol in and attend various sporting, artistic, religious and literary competitions, and a number of training and educational programmes in prison. There had thus been no failure by the prison authorities to comply with their obligations under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding in the prison.