MUNTEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 23758/17 (Judgment : Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section Committee) French Text [2020] ECHR 208 (05 March 2020)

MUNTEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 23758/17 (Judgment : Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section Committee) French Text [2020] ECHR 208 (05 March 2020)

The authorities failed to adequately balance the applicants' right to respect for family life with public order and security interests, and did not consider alternatives such as escorted leave. The refusals were not shown to be necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 8.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 208
Parties
Applicant: Adrian-Costel Munteanu; Applicant: Cosmin-Sarafim Paşcan; Applicant: Andrei Haljini; Applicant: Crina Vlasin; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Judgment
Outcome
violation of Article 8; partial inadmissibility; just satisfaction awarded
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Prisoners' Rights, Funeral Attendance, Effective Remedies
Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Right to Respect for Private and Family Life Prisoners' Rights Funeral Attendance Effective Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian-Costel Munteanu

Applicant

Cosmin-Sarafim Paşcan

Applicant

Andrei Haljini

Applicant

Crina Vlasin

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to allow prisoners to attend funerals of close family members violated Article 8 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether effective remedies were available to the applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The authorities failed to adequately balance the applicants' right to respect for family life with public order and security interests, and did not consider alternatives such as escorted leave. The refusals were not shown to be necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 8.

Court Disposition

violation of Article 8; partial inadmissibility; just satisfaction awarded

Orders

  • The Court declares the applications admissible as to the Article 8 complaints and inadmissible as to the remainder of application no. 23758/17.
  • The Court finds a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.