CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 November 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5617/24 Assar PAULUS against Estonia lodged on 12 February 2024 communicated on 21 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The complaint under Article 3 concerns the applicant, a prisoner, spending extended periods of time in solitary confinement. Between 5 April 2017 and 23 March 2020 a number of disciplinary punishments were (consecutively) enforced against the applicant, which resulted in him spending several separate periods ranging between 30 days and 135 days under the punishment-cell regime ( kartserirežiim ), the conditions of which amounted to solitary confinement. There were breaks of between three and 70 days between the application of the punishment-cell regime during which the applicant was under normal prison regime. As a result, during that whole period the applicant spent altogether 816 days under the punishment-cell regime and 287 days under normal prison regime. The domestic courts, examining the various periods of punishment-cell regime separately, recognised that such a practice had been unlawful in respect of two specific periods of solitary confinement, lasting 126 and 135 days, and awarded the applicant 700 euros (EUR) as compensation. As for the remainder of the periods (lasting between 30 and 90 days) the applicant’s claim for compensation was dismissed. As for the applicant’s particular complaint about suffering from backpain and being refused an exercise mat and bedding in the punishment cell during daytime, the courts noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with back problems. However, they considered it relevant that he had not asked for the bedding to be left in the cell and added that he could have done exercises even without the specific mat. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, referring to the extended period of time he had to spend under punishment-cell regime as well as the health damage (back pain) caused by the removal of bedding from the cell during daytime. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the outcome of the domestic proceedings, notably the compensation awarded, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, in respect of the periods of 126 and 135 consecutive days under the punishment-cell regime (compare Schmidt and Šmigol v. Estonia , nos. 3501/20 and 2   others, §§   165-169, 28 November 2023)?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of his prolonged solitary confinement and health concerns (see Schmidt and Šmigol , cited above, §§ 133-163)?