CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 7 March 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10753/21 Jevgeni TEPLJAKOV against Estonia lodged on 9 February 2021 communicated on 15 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions of detention in the Pärnu Arrest House ( arestimaja ), including the possibility to meet with family members, and the applicant’s access to a certain online legal database The applicant complains that between August 2016 and December 2018 he spent several periods (varying from 6 days to 100 days at a time, 345   days altogether) in Pärnu Arrest House in inadequate conditions in terms of furniture, light, fresh air, outside walks and personal hygiene. During these periods his possibility to have meetings with his family members was limited in time (10 minutes a month) and took place in a corridor. He did not have access to an online database containing legal acts and court judgments. In relation to the majority of the above complaints, the domestic courts awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. The applicant invokes complaints under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention (regarding the physical conditions of detention, conditions regarding meetings with family members and access to online legal database). The complaint regarding family visits falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and the sum awarded for non-pecuniary damage, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of violations of the Convention within the meaning of Article   34 in respect of physical conditions of detention, the restrictions on meetings with his family, and access to online legal database (see, for example, Nikitin and Others v.   Estonia , nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, § 197, 29 January 2019; Shmelev and   Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 41743/17 and others, §§ 91-95, 17 March 2020, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, §§ 27-28, 14 November 2017, all with further references)?   2.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the sanitary conditions and the lack of possibility to spend time in fresh air, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 (see Ananyev and   Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-159, 10 January 2012, and cases cited therein)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, owing to the restrictions (in terms of duration and place) that applied during the applicant’s meetings with his family members? In particular, were the restrictions imposed in accordance with the law, did they pursue a legitimate aim and were they justified as being necessary in a democratic society (compare Chaldayev v. Russia , no. 33172/16, §§ 59-65, 28 May 2019; Andrey   Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-38 and 51-56, 13 February 2018; and Bogusław Krawczak v. Poland , no. 24205/06, §§ 107-121, 31   May 2011)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (compare Ramazan Demir v. Turkey , no.   68550/17, §§   30-48, 9 February 2021 ; Jankovskis v. Lithuania , no.   21575/08, §§ 52-64, 17 January 2017 ; and Kalda v. Estonia , no.   17429/10, §§ 43-54, 19 January 2016)?