European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 174

Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria - 16032/07

Judgment 27.5.2014 [Section IV] See: [2014] ECHR 527

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

Right to education

Refusal to enrol remand prisoner in prison school: violation

Facts – In 2005 the applicant, a remand prisoner, requested to be enrolled in the prison school. His request was refused first by the prison authorities and ultimately by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Prison Governor reasoned that, if convicted, the applicant, who had a previous conviction, would be a recidivist and should thus be kept separately from the non-recidivist prisoners. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected his request on different grounds, holding that the right to education applied only to convicted prisoners, not remand prisoners.

Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: The Court recalled that lawfully detained prisoners continued to enjoy all fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, save for the right to liberty. Consequently, the applicant still had the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The right to education imposed a duty on Bulgaria to afford effective access to existing educational establishments, including prison schools. Consequently, the Government had the burden of showing that its exclusion of the applicant was foreseeable, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to that aim. The Court found it open to doubt whether the exclusion was sufficiently foreseeable, as the relevant legislative framework provided that convicted prisoners had the right to be included in educational programmes and that provisions regarding convicted prisoners were equally applicable to remand prisoners. The lack of clarity in the statutory framework was reflected in the fact that the reasons given by the national authorities for his exclusion were different: the Prison Governor and the Ministry of Justice emphasised the applicant’s potential recidivism, while the Supreme Administrative Court focused on the applicant’s remand status.

The Government had relied on three different grounds to justify the applicant’s exclusion from the school. As to their first argument that it was inappropriate for the applicant to attend school with convicted prisoners, the Court observed that the the applicant did not have any objections and there was no evidence to show that remand prisoners would be harmed by attending school with convicted prisoners. Moreover, the Court did not consider the uncertainty of the length of the pre-trial detention to be a valid justification for exclusion from educational facilities. Finally, as regards the Government’s third argument that the applicant risked being sentenced as a recidivist, so it would not be in the interests of the non-recidivist prisoners to attend school with him, the Court recalled that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of innocence and thus could not be classified as a recidivist. In the light of these considerations, and recognising the applicant’s undoubted interest in completing his secondary education, the Court found that the refusal to enrol him in prison school had not been sufficiently foreseeable, had not pursued a legitimate aim or was proportionate to that aim.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of 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