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
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
2006 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
1 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:
