Prisoner did not receive meals compatible with his religion. No written proof is required for a change of religion. Violation of the right to religious freedom
JUDGMENT
Saran v. Romania 10.11.2020 (app. no. 65993/16)
SUMMARY
Religious freedom and compatible meals in prisons. Failure to provide a prisoner with meals compliant with Islamic principles.
The applicant was held in five Romanian prisons between 2016 and 2018. He complained that he had not received meals in accordance with his religious, Islam, in two of them and was required to provide written proof , although he had stated that he was a Muslim when he was admitted in prison and the prison records confirmed this fact.
The Court found, in particular, that the national authorities refusing to provide the applicant with meals consistent with the principles of his religion during his detention in the town of Iasi had not struck a fair balance between the interests of the prisoner, the other detainee and the individual interests of the detainee. It also noted that the applicant had received meals compatible with his religion at the other prisons held in Botoşani, Codlea and Deva, indicating that the Romanian prison system was capable of satisfying such requests.
The Court rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning the Miercurea-Ciuc prison on the ground that they had been lodged out of time.
The ECtHR found a violation of the right to religious freedom (Article 9) and awarded € 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
PROVISION
Article 9
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ion Saran, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1983. He lives in Braşov (Romania).
Between April 2016 and August 2018, Mr Saran served a prison sentence in several Romanian
prisons. He alleged that he had declared himself to be a Muslim when he was admitted to prison.
The Government contested that assertion.
In April 2016 Mr Saran was placed in detention in Botoşani Prison, where he declared that he was a
Muslim and asked to be provided with meals compatible with the precepts of that religion. His
request was granted.
Between May and December 2016 he was held in Iaşi and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons, where he
requested access to a place of worship and meals compatible with his religion. His requests were
refused by the management in both prisons and by the competent courts. The latter observed,
among other findings, that Mr Saran had initially declared himself to be an Orthodox Christian and
had not subsequently produced any document proving that he was a Muslim.
In December 2016 Mr Saran was placed in detention in Codlea Prison, where he was served with
meals compatible with the precepts of Islam. He was subsequently transferred to Deva Prison
where, from 7 April 2017 onwards, he also received meals compatible with the diet prescribed for
Muslims.
Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and on Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination), Mr Saran complained that in Iaşi and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons he had not been
provided with meals compatible with the precepts of his religion or with a suitable place of worship.
He also alleged that he had been discriminated against compared with the majority of prisoners,
who were adherents of the Orthodox Christian faith.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
The Court noted at the outset that Mr Saran’s complaints concerning Miercurea-Ciuc Prison were
out of time, having been submitted outside the six-month time-limit laid down by Article 35 § 1
(admissibility criteria) of the Convention. Those complaints were therefore rejected.
As to the complaints concerning Iaşi Prison, the Court noted that Law no. 254/2013 and the
secondary legislation implementing that Law made express provision for the right of prisoners to
receive meals compatible with the precepts of their religion. It also observed that Order
no. 1072/2013, which constituted the applicable domestic law in this sphere, provided that prisoners
could make a solemn declaration as to their religious affiliation when they were admitted to prison
and, if they converted while in detention, could produce a solemn declaration at that juncture and a
document confirming their new religious affiliation.
The Government contended that Mr Saran had declared himself to be an Orthodox Christian when
he was placed in detention and should have subsequently produced proof of his conversion to Islam
in order to be provided with meals compatible with the precepts of that religion.
However, the Court noted that Mr Saran had stated, and the Government had not disputed, that he
had received meals compatible with the precepts of Islam in Botoşani Prison, where he had been
detained at the beginning of his time in prison. It also noted that the ethical and spiritual assistance
form in Iaşi Prison had stated that he was a Muslim, as had the educational and psychosocial support
records of Codlea and Deva Prisons.
The Court also observed that the Iaşi Court of First Instance had dismissed Mr Saran’s appeal on the
grounds that he had declared at the time of his admission to prison that he was an Orthodox Christian and had not subsequently proved that he was an adherent of Islam. However, these findings of fact, made on 28 March 2017, did not tally with the ethical and spiritual assistance form
completed on 24 May 2016 in Iaşi Prison, according to which Mr Saran was a Muslim. Nor was there
any indication that the Court of First Instance had attempted to check the factual data recorded by
the prison management regarding Mr Saran’s religious affiliation. Furthermore, the Government had
not explained the discrepancies as to the applicant’s religious affiliation between the various
documents issued by the national authorities.
The Court considered that the authorities had a duty to make the necessary arrangements and to
coordinate with each other so as to ensure that information was circulated and shared properly,
particularly in a situation such as that in the present case, where the order of the Ministry of Justice
had drawn a distinction between the initial declaration of religion, which the prisoner could make
freely and without particular formalities when he or she was admitted to prison, and a change of
religion in the course of detention, which the prisoner had to prove by means of a document issued
by representatives of his or her new faith.
Consequently, the Court considered that in refusing to provide Mr Saran, during his detention in Iaşi
Prison, with meals compatible with the precepts of his religion, the national authorities had not
struck a fair balance between the interests of the prison, those of the other prisoners and the
individual interests of the prisoner concerned. It also noted that Mr Saran had received meals
compatible with his religion in Botoşani, Codlea and Deva Prisons, which suggested that the
Romanian prison system was capable of accommodating such requests.
The Court also took into consideration the length of the proceedings concerning the meals served in
Iaşi Prison. It noted that the judgment of the Iaşi Court of First Instance had been delivered on
28 March 2017, whereas Mr Saran had been transferred to Codlea Prison on 6 December 2016. The
Government had not offered any explanation for the delay in those proceedings.
Hence, in the light of the foregoing considerations and notwithstanding the margin of appreciation
left to the respondent State in the matter, the Court considered that the national authorities had not
complied, to a degree that was reasonable in the circumstances of the case, with their positive
obligations under Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the meals provided to Mr Saran in Iaşi
Prison. There had therefore been a violation of that provision.
In view of that finding, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the applicant’s allegations
concerning the authorities’ refusal to provide him with a suitable place of worship in Iaşi Prison.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Romania was to pay Mr Saran 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
