10.  The applicant was born in 1972. When the application was lodged he was being held in Schrassig Prison. He is currently being held under a semi‑custodial regime in Givenich Prison. 11.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant was remanded in custody. 12.  In a judgment of 22 October 2001 the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment, of which three years were suspended, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rape and false imprisonment accompanied by acts of torture, committed on 10 December 1998. 13.  The applicant was granted a divorce on 19 October 2000. He provided the Court with various judicial decisions given between 14 June 2001 and 13 April 2005 concerning his right of contact with his three minor children. 14.  While in prison the applicant submitted several requests for temporary leave of absence (“prison leave”), which are the subject of the present case. 15.  The applicant stated that he had submitted a request for prison leave to the Attorney General in October 2003. 16.  At the request of the counselling service’s psychologist the applicant explained on 16 October 2003 that he was requesting prison leave for one day and had no objection to being escorted while on leave. He stated that the reason for the request was to complete certain administrative formalities, which he detailed as follows:
“- go to a photographer or photo booth to obtain passport photos;
- go to the Transport Ministry to renew my driving licence (medical certificate already obtained);
- go to the Embassy to renew my consular registration card;
- go to see Mr [B.] at Luxembourg police station, Investigations Division, to pick up an envelope containing documents needed by a former client;
- go to see the manager of [B.] bank in Esch/Alzette;
- go to the taxation office in Esch/Alzette;
- meet a group of friends in a restaurant near Esch/Alzette;
- go to my flat in Differdange to collect the remaining documents for the same client;
- take some measurements for items I might make in the [prison] workshop;
- go to Differdange town hall for a personal interview with the mayor;
- go to the home of Mrs [S.] in Luxembourg to meet her husband;
- go to my lawyer’s office to hand over the missing documents for my former client;
- if possible, go to the bookshop near [S.]’s house.”
In his letter, the applicant stated further:
“... Unfortunately, the civil damages are still far from being paid, as I have not even had enough funds to make a down-payment. At the moment I am still engaged in repaying my loans and other debts to the various authorities under the arrangements entered into with the legal service in order to avoid an unending series of seizures of my property. ...” 17.  On 29 October 2003 a psychologist issued a certificate (confirmed on 25 November 2003 by a second psychologist) stating that the applicant had begun a course of psychotherapy on 19 May 1999 which had been discontinued on 30 September 2002 for reasons beyond his control. The psychologist stressed that the applicant had been anxious to understand what had driven him to commit the offences and to do everything possible to avoid reoffending. 18.  On 5 November 2003 the Attorney General’s representative sent a memorandum to the prison governor worded as follows:
“...please inform the prisoner Thomas Boulois
that by decision of the Prison Board
[the] request for prison leave ... [is] refused in view of the risk of deportation (an application was made to the Ministry of Justice on 25 June 2003, but no decision has yet been taken). There is also a risk that the prisoner might abscond, given that he has failed to reflect on his crime. Before being allowed any privileges he must begin to pay the civil party.” 19.  On 17 January 2004 the applicant reiterated his request, stating that the reasons and the itinerary for the day’s prison leave remained the same. On 27 January 2004 his lawyer submitted arguments in support of the applicant’s request and concluded as follows:
“... granting [the applicant] a day’s prison leave during which he could begin to put his affairs in order with a view to leading an independent life [outside] prison, [would] not only aid [the applicant’s] rehabilitation and reintegration into society, but [would] also enable him to start paying compensation to the civil party as quickly as possible. ...” 20.  On 17 March 2004 the Attorney General’s representative sent a memorandum to the prison governor containing the following passages:
“... please inform the prisoner Thomas Boulois
that by decision of the Prison Board
the decision of 5 November 2003 refusing his request for prison leave ... remains valid.” 21.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Court (tribunal administratif) for judicial review of the decisions of the Prison Board of 5 November 2003 and 17 March 2004. 22.  At a hearing held on 6 December 2004 the Administrative Court raised of its own motion the question whether it had jurisdiction to examine the application for judicial review. The Government, which had not raised an objection alleging lack of jurisdiction, left the matter to the discretion of the court. 23.  On 23 December 2004 the Administrative Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the application for judicial review, for the following reasons:
“... A distinction must be made between administrative measures relating to the treatment of prisoners in prison (such as a decision to place them in a more secure part of the prison, and in particular imposing a strict confinement regime – see Administrative Court ruling no. 14568 of 10 July 2002), which are taken in the context of enforcement by the prison service, and decisions which may alter the nature or scope of a sentence handed down by the ordinary courts, which are to be classified as judicial rather than administrative decisions.
In the instant case it must be acknowledged that the granting or refusal of the privilege of prison leave constitutes a measure which alters the ‘scope’ of the sentence imposed on the applicant by the ordinary court.
Hence, the two decisions in question are judicial in nature.
Accordingly, bearing in mind their nature as identified above, the impugned decisions cannot be the subject of an application to the administrative courts... .” 24.  On 14 April 2005 the Higher Administrative Court (cour administrative) upheld this ruling, as follows:
“The [applicant] submitted that the court erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to examine his application for judicial review, arguing that: no other remedy existed in respect of such refusal, with the result that section 2(1) of the Law of 7 November 1996 on the organisation of the administrative courts should be applied; the impugned decisions did not alter the scope of the sentence; the court had denied him justice in breach of Article [6 § 1] of the [Convention] by depriving him of a fair hearing.
... The [applicant]’s case concerns a request for prison leave, in other words, a decision which alters the nature of the execution of the sentence handed down by the ordinary courts and which should therefore be classified as a judicial rather than an administrative decision.
The expression ‘the scope of the sentence imposed’, used by the court, is not to be understood in the present case as the length of the sentence but as the manner of its execution in a broad sense.
The administrative court was therefore correct in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the application.
A finding by the administrative courts that they lack jurisdiction cannot be construed as a declaration of unwillingness on their part to rule on the issue; the allegation of a denial of justice should therefore be dismissed as unfounded.
Article [6 § 1] of the [Convention] is not applicable in relation to a body which has no power to rule on the merits. ...” 25.  On 11 August 2004 the applicant submitted a third request for prison leave, in the following terms:
“... I have successfully attended several courses run by the CEP-L [Chamber of Commerce] and would like to continue with a view to obtaining the corresponding diplomas.
The diplomas concerned are in accounting and computer (PC) use. I completed the previous courses successfully, but for the sake of feasibility it is now essential for me to be able to attend the courses of the autumn session at the CEP-L itself. ...” 26.  In a decision of 21 September 2004 the request was refused on the ground that the applicant could attend courses in prison and that he had made no substantial efforts to date towards paying compensation to the victim. The decision also referred to the reasoning of the decision of 5 November 2003. 27.  In a fourth request, submitted on 24 February 2005, the applicant observed, among other things, that he could not understand why, in view of the need for him to reintegrate into society, he had been refused permission to attend the final classes required in order to obtain the diplomas in accounting and computing. He added that the reason he had requested prison leave was to renew his identity papers and driving licence and make arrangements for the repayment of his debts to the various institutions and the civil party. 28.  On 23 March 2005 his request was refused for failure to give reasons. 29.  On 12 July 2005 a fifth request for prison leave (not provided to the Court) was refused on the ground that there was a risk that the applicant would not return to prison. 30.  On 4 May 2006 a sixth request for prison leave (not provided to the Court) was refused on the ground that the applicant had been making no efforts, in particular with regard to paying the civil damages, and was refusing to abide by the conditions imposed on him. 31.  Following the refusal of this request, the applicant applied to the Attorney General’s Department on five occasions between 10 May and 29 October 2006. He requested assistance in putting in place a repayment plan appropriate to his circumstances and the demands of the civil party, and sought an explanation of the requirements he was expected to meet with a view to his reintegration in society, so that he could take steps to comply with them. On 6 November 2006 the Attorney General’s representative decided that he would not, as matters stood, reply to the various letters, which did not call for any comment. 32.  On 20 November 2006 the Attorney General acknowledged receipt of a request from the applicant for an interview and said that he would meet him during one of his forthcoming visits to the prison. The applicant claimed that the meeting had never taken place. 33.  According to the case file, in April 2009 the applicant was transferred to a semi-custodial regime in Givenich Prison, where he carried on paid work as a cook. On 10 February 2010 he started up a business as a sole trader.