Latvijas Republikas Augstākā tiesa
2007. gada 7. novembris
Facts
The applicant, Mr. B., applied to the district administrative court claiming compensation for the fact that he is not able to obtain secondary education and work during his imprisonment. The district and regional court refused to accept his application stating that there is no substantial infringement the applicant’s fundamental rights which would warrant the commencement of administrative proceedings.
Complaint
The applicant considered that the prison administration has violated Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia by not providing him with paid work. He also complained that the judges of lower courts have violated his right to submit a complaint about the violations of his right to education and right to work.
Court's ruling
The Supreme Court stated that a prisoner is considered to be a specially subordinated person to the prison administration. In such cases a prisoner’s claim can be examined by the administrative court if the decision or actions in question have substantially infringed a prisoner’s human rights. Therefore, a court had to determine firstly whether applicant’s human rights have been infringed and secondly whether such infringement was substantive.
The Court pointed out that Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia only means that a person can freely choose whether and where to work – it does not impose an obligation on the state to ensure that everyone has a job. According to Latvian law the prisoners may have an opportunity to work on certain maintenance jobs for prison, in prison factories or to be employed by a private employer if such positions are available.
However, all prisoners were not entitled to work nor did the state have an obligation to provide them with paid work. The binding norms of international law also did not put such obligation on the state or the prison administration. Therefore, the Court found no infringement of the applicant’s right to work.
The Court found that prisoners do not enjoy fundamental rights to free secondary education in prison. Since the Court found no infringement of the applicant’s human rights, the Court ruled that the case should not be heard by administrative courts and his right to access the court has not been violated.