Platon v Moldova: Prison medical care and family visit restrictions breach Convention

Case summary

The European Court of Human Rights has found multiple Convention breaches in Platon v the Republic of Moldova (Application no. 74995/17), judgement delivered 9 October 2025. The Fifth Section Chamber unanimously held that Moldova violated Articles 3 and 13 (medical assistance) and Article 8 (family life) concerning the detention conditions of Veaceslav Platon, a former member of Parliament detained pending trial between August 2016 and June 2020.

Insufficient medical assistance constitutes inhuman treatment

The Court found a substantive Article 3 violation regarding inadequate medical treatment. Mr Platon experienced dental problems requiring specialist treatment from June 2017 until at least October 2018. Whilst the Chișinău Court of Appeal authorised private dental treatment in September 2017, acknowledging the prison dentist lacked necessary equipment, two private clinics subsequently refused to treat the applicant after initially agreeing.

The judgement emphasises that where prison facilities cannot provide requisite medical care and such treatment is readily available externally, authorities bear responsibility for securing alternative arrangements. The state's failure to find solutions—either by procuring equipment or ensuring access to external providers—breached its positive obligations under Article 3.

Regarding kidney pain complaints, the Court noted the absence of documentary evidence showing prison doctors examined the applicant or that he refused such examinations, despite government assertions to the contrary. The judgement found that complaints of potentially serious medical conditions were "ignored in a manner incompatible with the State duty to secure necessary medical care in prison".

Article 13 violation: no effective remedy

The Court rejected the government's argument that the applicant should have pursued criminal complaints against individual prison staff. In detention medical care cases, preventive remedies must coexist with compensatory ones, and such remedies must have "potential to bring direct and timely relief". Despite numerous requests over more than one year, Mr Platon obtained neither dental nor kidney treatment, establishing an Article 13 violation.

Family visits: disproportionate interference under Article 8

The judgement found that systematic three-month prohibitions on family visits, applied approximately quarterly for over two years, constituted disproportionate interference with family life. Mr Platon was unable to see his wife or mother throughout this period due to disciplinary sanctions for various prison rule breaches.

Whilst accepting that prison discipline may warrant temporary visit restrictions, the Court emphasised that sanctions must be proportionate, particularly where restrictions don't directly relate to visiting rights violations. The periodic application of consecutive three-month bans created a "virtually permanent prohibition" on family contact.

Significantly, the authorities failed to consider the cumulative effect of repeated sanctions or whether continued separation remained proportionate over time. The domestic courts inadequately addressed allegations that the "Pantera" special forces detachment—assigned to guard Mr Platon continuously—provoked rule breaches leading to sanctions.

The Court noted that even after one sanction expired, authorities refused a requested visit, only imposing a new sanction shortly thereafter. This demonstrated the restriction's disproportionality to the legitimate aim of maintaining prison order.

Just satisfaction

Moldova was ordered to pay €15,600 for non-pecuniary damage and €2,000 for costs and expenses within three months of the judgement becoming final.

The case reinforces state obligations to ensure meaningful medical care access in detention and maintain proportionality when restricting fundamental rights, even for disciplinary purposes. The cumulative impact of repeated sanctions requires specific consideration in judicial review.