CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s93548B55 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5D0298BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAA0553B6 { width:285pt; display:inline-block } .s22D120F9 { width:33.28pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s67CDEFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85CAF366 { margin-left:17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sD85BBB70 { width:24.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }         SECOND SECTION Application no. 42233/11 Bronislavas SEMĖNAS against Lithuania and 4 other applications STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   Application no. 42233/11 was lodged on 7   June   2011 by Bronislavas Semėnas, who was born on 5   February   1975 and lives in Alytus. From 15 to 17 September 2009 the applicant was placed in custody at the Vilnius County Police Headquarters Arrest House ( Vilniaus apskrities vyriausiojo policijos komisariato areštinė ). From 17 September 2009 the applicant was held at Lukiškės Remand Prison. On 3 December 2009 the Ombudsman, in reply to a complaint made by the applicant, found that while in custody at the Vilnius County Police Headquarters he had indeed been held in unsanitary conditions, in an unventilated cell without windows and natural light. On 6 and 7 January 2010 the Vilnius Public Health Centre inspected the cells at Lukiškės Remand Prison where the applicant had been detained after his transfer from police custody. According to a report of 8   January   2010, the following breaches of standards of hygiene and sanitation were found: (a)     cell no. 381, where the applicant had been held for forty-eight days from 18   September to 5 November 2009, was situated in dilapidated premises with insufficient heating, a lack of proper ventilation and a lack of natural light; (b)     cell no. 372, where the applicant had been held for one day from 5 to 6   November 2009, was also situated in dilapidated premises with insufficient heating (the temperature ranged from +11.8 to +12.1 o C in January 2010), a lack of proper ventilation and insufficient lighting; (c)     cell no. 218, where the applicant had been held for twenty-five days from 3 to 28 December 2009, was situated in a dilapidated semi-basement cell with insufficient heating (the temperature ranged from +15.9 to +16.1 o   C in January 2010), a lack of proper ventilation and insufficient lighting. The administrative proceedings for damages The applicant lodged a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by being detained in poor conditions. He also alleged that during his detention his state of health had deteriorated. The applicant submitted that he had been hospitalised because of inflammation of the spinal nerves. A pre-existing skin condition (psoriasis) had worsened. He was also being medically treated for headaches and stress. On 28 May 2010 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him 750 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 220 euros (EUR)) for his seventy-four days of detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison. No compensation was awarded in respect of the detention in the Police Department although the conditions of detention there were found to have been inadequate. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 1 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court amended the decision of the first-instance court and increased the award to LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 580). The courts found the State liable for its failure to ensure adequate conditions of detention as set out in the above-mentioned reports of the Ombudsman and the Vilnius Public Health Centre. The circumstances concerning the applicant’s state of health were taken into account. The arguments of the defendants that the conditions complained of were in accordance with the requirements of domestic law were dismissed, together with their allegations of insufficient State funding.   Application no. 61084/11 was lodged on 28   September   2011 by Tadeuš Petrulevič who was born on 20   June   1978 and lives in Dvarčiai, in the Vilnius Region. From 8 April 2005 to 26 October 2006 the applicant was detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. During that time he was held in cells nos. 104, 128, 141, 144, 152, 165, 174, 175, 193, 197, 252, 309, 315, 318 and 321. The applicant submits that the conditions of his detention were degrading. In particular, he alleges that the cells were overcrowded and that the sanitary conditions did not comply with the domestic standards. There was mould on walls, humidity, insufficient heating, no glass in the windows and an infestation of rodents and vermin. The administrative proceedings for damage In October 2009 the applicant sued the State, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the degrading conditions of his detention. On 17 May 2010 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him LTL 1,000 (approximately EUR   290). On 21 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the lower court. The courts found that during the applicant’s detention the State had failed to guarantee him the statutory minimum of five square metres of personal space. The remaining complaints concerning inadequate sanitary conditions were dismissed as unfounded. Neither the courts in their decisions, nor the applicant in his application before the court, specified how much personal space he had actually been afforded in the above-mentioned cells.   Application no. 29292/12 was lodged on 4   May   2012 by Bogdan Petrulevič, who was born on 14   October   1986 and lives in Rukainiai, in the Vilnius Region. From 8 April 2005 to 26 October 2006 the applicant was detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. As regards the size of the cells and their holding capacity, the domestic courts established as follows: (a)     cell no. 293, where the applicant had been held for one month and twenty-two days from 10 April to 1 June 2005, measured 7.91 square metres and housed from two to four detainees; (b)     cell no. 274, where the applicant had been held for twenty-eight days from 1 June 2005 to 29 June 2005, measured 7.76 square metres and housed from two to five detainees; (c)     cell no. 299A, where the applicant had been held for ten months and eleven days from 29 June 2005 to 10 May 2006, measured 7.67 square metres and housed from two to four detainees; (d)     cell no. 256, where the applicant had been held for five months and sixteen days from 10 May to 26 October 2006, measured 23.32 square metres and housed from six to fourteen detainees. The applicant submits that the conditions of his detention were degrading. In particular, he alleges that the cells were overcrowded and that the sanitary conditions did not comply with the domestic standards. There was mould on the walls, humidity, insufficient heating, no glass in the windows and an infestation of rodents and vermin. The administrative proceedings for damages In October 2009 the applicant sued the State, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the degrading conditions of his detention. On 9 June 2011, after the case had been referred back on one occasion, for re-examination, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him LTL 3,000 (approximately EUR   870). On 6 February 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court amended the decision of the first-instance court and increased the award to LTL 8,000 (EUR 2,300). The courts found that during the applicant’s detention the State had failed to guarantee the statutory minimum of five square metres per person. In particular, it was noted that for 309 days the applicant had less than 2.5 square metres and sometimes only 1.55 square metres, of personal space. Moreover, only one hour-long outdoor walk per day had been available. The courts dismissed the applicant’s remaining complaints, including those concerning the insanitary conditions.   Application no. 40828/12 was lodged on 18   June   2012 by Ričardas Mironovas, who was born on 1   December   1978 and lives in Klaipėda. As from 14 November 2003 the applicant has been serving his prison sentence in the Pravieniškės Open Prison. On nine occasions during the period from March 2009 to March 2011 the applicant was hospitalised at the Remand Prison Hospital in Vilnius ( Laisvės atėmimo vietų ligoninė ) with reactive polyarthritis. As regards the size of the rooms and their holding capacity, the domestic courts established as follows: (a)     from 13 March to 15 April 2009 he had been held in rooms nos. 4 and   6: room no. 4 measured 14.9 square metres and contained four beds; room no. 6 measured 12.11 square metres and contained three beds; (b)     from 13 May to 25 May 2009 the applicant had been held in room no.   4; (c)     from 21 July to 24 August 2009 the applicant had been held in room no. 24, which measured 21.25 square metres and contained between five and ten beds; (d)     from 18 to 20 November 2009 he had been held in room no. 3, which measured 19.80 square metres and contained seven beds; (e)     from 8 to 13 January 2010 the applicant had been held in room no. 5, which measured 12.14 square metres and contained three beds; (f)     from 19 to 24 March 2010 the applicant had been held in room no. 1, which measured 22.84 square metres and contained six beds; (g)     from 14 to 16 July 2010 the applicant had been again held in room no. 3; (h)     from 1 to 3 December 2010 he had been again held in room no. 4; (i)     from 2 to 4 March 2011 the applicant had been again held in room no.   3. The applicant submits that the conditions of his stay at the Remand Prison Hospital were degrading and in breach of the requirements of the domestic law. He alleges that the hospital rooms were overcrowded, insufficiently heated and ventilated; the premises were dilapidated and not suitable for a person with his health problems (the applicant had difficulties moving because of his arthritis). His state of health has significantly deteriorated with time, and, as a result, he has been suffering constant physical pain and psychological distress. The applicant also notes that during the period from 24 May 2010 to 7   June 2011 the Remand Prison Hospital was not operating under a valid hygiene and sanitation licence. After having inspected the hospital facilities on several occasions, the Vilnius Public Health Centre refused to issue the licence as the hospital did not comply with sanitary and hygiene regulations. The administrative proceedings for damages The applicant sued the State, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the allegedly degrading conditions in which he was detained at the Remand Prison Hospital. On 14 November 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR   580). On 3 May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The courts concluded that the applicant’s complaint with regard to the overcrowding in the hospital was substantiated. They observed that official regulations on room space in prison hospitals in force until 11 April 2010 stipulated a minimum of seven square metres per bed, whereas from 14 May 2010 the standard applicable in respect of the applicant was 3.6   square metres per person. Moreover, they found the defendant in breach of its duty to collect and provide the domestic courts with data showing the exact number of patients in each room for the respective periods of time. The courts also found that the applicant’s rights had been breached because on three occasions when he was admitted to the Remand Prison Hospital it did not have a valid hygiene and sanitation licence and therefore did not comply with the national sanitation and hygiene regulations. However, no relationship was found between the conditions at the remand prison hospital and the applicant’s state of health.   Application no. 69598/12 was lodged on 16 October   2012 by Roman Ivanenkov, who was born on 28 January 1980 and lives in Vilnius. From 16 May 2008 to 27 April 2010 the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Alytus Correction Facility. As regards the size of the rooms and their holding capacity, the domestic courts established as follows: (a)     room no. 6, where the applicant had been held from 16 May 2008 to 7   December 2009, measured 30.28 square metres and contained sixteen beds; (b)     cell no. 21, where the applicant had been held from 8 December 2009 to 27 April 2010, measured 24.80 square metres and contained 15   beds. After having inspected the facilities at Alytus Correction Facility in March 2010 the Alytus Public Health Centre found multiple breaches of hygiene and sanitation requirements. It noted that the rooms were overcrowded, the premises dilapidated, with insufficient lighting, there was also a shortage of furniture, washing machines, toilets and cleaning inventory; bathrooms and other premises were dirty and needed renovation. The administrative proceedings for damages The applicant sued the State, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the degrading conditions of his detention. On 19 December 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court found that during his stay in Alytus Correction Facility the applicant had 1.7   –   1.9   square meters of personal space while the statutory minimum in force until 11 April 2010 was set at 3 square meters. By awarding the compensation of LTL 2,300 (approximately EUR 670), the court took into account the fact that while in the Correction House the applicant had a possibility during the prescribed schedule to move around freely in the grounds and premises of the Correction House, use its sporting facilities, work and participate in public events. The remaining complaints of the applicant concerning the allegedly inadequate medical care were dismissed as unfounded. On 26 April 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the conclusions of the first instance court but decided not to award the compensation, noting that the finding of the violation was in itself a sufficient satisfaction for the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1.     In application no. 42233/11 the applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention of ill-treatment and degrading conditions as regards his detention at Lukiškės Remand Prison and Vilnius County Police Headquarters Arrest House. 2.     In application no. 61084/11 the applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention of ill-treatment and degrading conditions as regards his detention at Lukiškės Remand Prison. In particular, he refers to overcrowded cells, insufficient heating and inadequate hygiene and sanitation. 3.     In application no. 29292/12 the applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention of ill-treatment and degrading conditions as regards his detention at Lukiškės Remand Prison. In particular, he refers to overcrowded cells, insufficient heating, and inadequate hygiene and sanitation. 4.     In application no. 40828/12 the applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention of ill-treatment, inadequate medical care and degrading conditions during his stay at the Remand Prison Hospital in Vilnius. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention, he also complains of discrimination by the State on the basis of his social status as a prisoner. 5.     In application no. 69598/12 the applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention of ill-treatment and degrading conditions as regards his stay at Alytus Correction Facility. In particular, he refers to overcrowded rooms, and inadequate hygiene and sanitation.   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Can the applicants still be considered to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the decisions by the Supreme Administrative Court to find violations of the applicants’ rights? In this connection, the Court refers to Karalevičius v. Lithuania , no. 53254/99, §   39, 7   April 2005; Savenkovas v. Lithuania , no. 871/02, §§ 80-82, 18   November   2008; Orchowski v. Poland , no. 17885/04, § 122, 22   October   2009; Peers v. Greece , no. 28524/95, §§ 70-75, ECHR   2001 ‑ III.   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of detention (conditions of hospitalisation as concerns the application no. 40828/12)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     As concerns case no. 61084/11 the Government are requested to provide information about the exact personal space in cells afforded to the applicant during his stay at Lukiškės Remand Prison.   2.     As concerns cases nos. 42233/11, 61084/11 and 29292/11, the Government are requested to provide information about the actions that have been taken to improve the conditions at Lukiškės Remand Prison after the Court’s judgment in Savenkovas case.     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Conditions of detention, found to be in breach of the applicant’s rights by the domestic courts Period in question Duration of the applicant’s stay in poor conditions as established by the domestic courts Compensation awarded by the domestic courts                    42233/11 07/06/2011 Bronislavas SEMĖNAS 05/02/1975 Alytus   Insanitary conditions in cells Dilapidated premises Insufficient heating Lack of proper ventilation and lighting   September 2009 – January 2010   76 days   LTL 2,000 (approx. EUR 580)                    61084/11 28/09/2011 Tadeuš PETRULEVIČ 20/06/1978 Vilnius Region   Overcrowded cells, less than the statutory minimum of 5 sq.m per individual April 2005 – October 2006 1 year 6 months and 18 days LTL 1,000 (approx. EUR 290)                    29292/12 04/05/2012 Bogdan PETRULEVIČ 14/10/1986 Vilnius Region   Overcrowded cells, less than the statutory minimum of 5 sq.m per individual. Less than 2.5 sq.m for 309 days April 2005 – October 2006 1 year 6 months and 18 days LTL 8,000 (approx. EUR 2,300)                    40828/12 18/06/2012 Ričardas MIRONOVAS 01/12/1978 Klaipėda     Inadequate hygiene and sanitation in the prison hospital Overcrowded rooms in the prison hospital, less than the statutory minimum of 3.6 sq.m (7 sq.m) per individual   March 2009 – March 2011 On nine occasions, for an overall duration of 106 days LTL 2,000 (approx. EUR 580)                    69598/12 16/10/2012 Roman Ivanenkov 28/01/1980 Vilnius   Inadequate hygiene and sanitation Dilapidated and dirty premises Insufficient lighting Shortage of furniture, toilets, washing machines and cleaning inventory Overcrowded rooms, 1.7-1.9 sq.m. of personal space May 2008 – April 2010 1 year 11 months and 12 days None