003-3363097-3766785

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 933   07.12.2010   Prison should not have denied detainee vegetarian diet he   demanded in order to obey religious rules   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Jakóbski v. Poland (application no. 18429/06),   which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been   A violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human   Rights.   The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to provide a detainee with a meat-free diet in   prison, contrary to the dietary rules of his faith.   Principal facts   The applicant, Janusz Jakóbski, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and is   currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Nowogród Prison (Poland) for rape, of   which he was convicted in 2003.   A Buddhist, he repeatedly requested to be served meat-free meals in Goleniów Prison   where he was held for a number of years, stating that he adhered strictly to the   Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules which required refraining from eating meat. His   requests were refused. For some time he was granted a diet which did not include pork,   but other meats and fish.   In April 2006, Mr Jakóbski brought criminal proceedings against the prison employees,   complaining that, despite his requests, he was receiving meals containing meat products   and that he could not refuse them as this would have been regarded as a decision to   start a hunger strike and would have entailed disciplinary punishment. The criminal   proceedings were discontinued. Subsequently, the Buddhist Mission in Poland sent a   letter to the prison authorities in support of Mr Jakóbski, and he made another   unsuccessful request, addressed to the prison director, noting that the pork-free diet   contained meat and thus did not satisfy his needs.   Mr Jakóbski again asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the   prison employees, arguing that his religious convictions had not been respected. The   prosecutor refused to institute proceedings. Mr Jakóbski’s appeals against the   prosecutor’s decisions were dismissed by the District Court in October and December   respectively. In the meantime, in reply to further complaints by Mr Jakóbski, the   Regional Prisons Inspector informed him that the only special diet available in the prison   was the pork-free diet he had received earlier. The prisons inspector also underlined that   the prison authorities were not obliged to provide an individual with special food in order   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution     to meet the specific requirements of his or her faith. Mr Jakóbski’s subsequent complaint   to the Regional Court concerning the matter was dismissed in December 2007. The court   held in particular that in view of the technical conditions and understaffing in prison   kitchens it was not possible to provide each prisoner individually with food in conformity   with his or her religious dietary requirements.   In 2009, Mr Jakóbski was transferred to the Nowogród prison, where his requests for   meat-free meals were also refused.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Jakóbski complained that the refusal to provide him with a meat-free diet in prison,   contrary to the rules of his faith, violated his rights under Article 9. Relying on Article 14   (prohibition of discrimination), he also complained that other religious groups in prison   were allowed a special diet.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President,   Lech Garlicki (Poland),   Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),   Ján Šikuta (Slovakia),   Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),   Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),   Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 9   In response to the Government’s argument that vegetarianism could not be considered   an essential aspect of the practice of Mr Jakóbski’s religion, the Court underlined that the   refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with a vegetarian diet did fall within the   scope of Article 9. His decision to adhere to that diet could be regarded as motivated or   inspired by a religion. In other cases, the Court had already held that observing dietary   rules could be considered a direct expression of beliefs.   While the Court was prepared to accept that a decision to make special arrangements for   one prisoner within the system could have financial implications for the custodial   institution, it had to consider whether the State had struck a fair balance between the   different interests involved. The Court noted that Mr Jakóbski only asked to be granted a   diet without meat products; his meals did not have to be prepared, cooked and served in   a prescribed manner, nor did he require any special products. The Court was not   convinced that the provision of a vegetarian diet would have entailed any disruption to   the management of the prison or a decline in the standards of meals served to other   prisoners. It further underlined that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe   in its recommendation on the European Prison Rules, had advised that prisoners should   be provided with food that took into account their religion.   The Court concluded that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the   interests of the prison authorities and those of Mr Jakóbski, in violation of his rights   under Article 9.   Article 14   In view of these findings, the Court did not see the need for a separate examination of   the facts from the standpoint of Article 14.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Poland was to   pay Mr Jakóbski 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3