Last Updated on March 1, 2022 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF OZAROVSKIJ AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
(Applications nos. 17774/20 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 March 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ozarovskij and Others v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Pauliine Koskelo, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė‑Širmenė;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The cases concern the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention.
2. The applicants were detained at Alytus Correctional Facility, dormitory no. 2. Their applications concern the following periods:
– Mr Ozarovskij (“the first applicant”) – 803 days between 27 September 2015 and 5 March 2018;
– Mr Čeminava (“the second applicant”) – 226 days between 20 July 2017 and 21 March 2018;
– Mr Mežujevas (“the third applicant”) – 296 days between 7 August 2017 and 29 May 2018;
– Mr Marcinkonis (“the fourth applicant”) – 858 days between 30 January 2016 and 5 June 2018;
– Mr Žibas (“the fifth applicant”) – 321 days between 8 October 2015 and 23 August 2016;
– Mr Levickas (“the sixth applicant”) – 634 days between 10 June 2016 and 29 May 2018.
3. In February 2008 a commission appointed by the Alytus County Administration (hereinafter “the Commission”) inspected dormitory no. 2 and found that it was in poor condition. The Commission noted that the building had been built in 1940 and that its deterioration had been observed since 1997. The sanitation and sewage system had been damaged by corrosion, the electrical installations were in poor state, the foundations and exterior walls were decaying, the interior walls and ceilings had been damaged by mould and humidity, the windows and doors were not airtight, the interior constructions were dilapidated, and the roof was leaking. The Commission stated that the building was in need of urgent repair.
4. On various dates the applicants complained to the administrative courts that they had been detained in unsuitable conditions, as described in the Commission’s report.
5. The administrative courts found that the conditions in dormitory no. 2, established by the Commission in 2008, had pertained at the time of the applicants’ detention. In the proceedings brought by the first, second, third, fourth and sixth applicants, the courts acknowledged that those conditions had not complied with the relevant domestic standards, but that the acknowledgment of the violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by them. In the proceedings brought by the fifth applicant, the courts held that the conditions established by the Commission did not lead to a finding that his rights had been violated. The courts upheld the fifth applicant’s complaint that the number of toilets and sinks in the facility had been inadequate, but concluded, similarly, that the acknowledgment of the violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.
6. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been detained in inadequate conditions and that they had not been awarded any compensation.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The Government raised an inadmissibility objection with respect to the first, second and fourth applicants, submitting that they could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention because the domestic courts had acknowledged the violations of their rights, and that should be considered as adequate redress in the circumstances. However, the Court has consistently held that anyone who has been detained in inhuman or degrading conditions must be able to claim compensation (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 228, 10 January 2012; Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 190, 27 January 2015; and Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 93-94, 8 December 2015). In view of the fact that none of the applicants were awarded compensation (see paragraph 5 above), it finds that they all retain their victim status under Article 34 of the Convention.
9. The Court further notes that the complaints raised by all six applicants are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
10. The general principles concerning conditions of detention have been summarised in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 139-40, 20 October 2016, and the cases cited therein).
11. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicants’ detention had not attained the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention because they had each had at least three square metres of personal space and they had been able to freely move around the correctional facility during the day.
12. The Court has no reason to question the findings made by the Commission, and confirmed by the domestic courts, concerning the material conditions in dormitory no. 2 of Alytus Correctional Facility where the applicants were detained (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above); the Government did not challenge the accuracy of those findings either (see also Mironovas and Others, cited above, § 131). In view of the very serious state of dilapidation of the building in which the applicants were detained for lengthy periods of time (see paragraph 2 above), the Court finds that those conditions exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that could not be remedied by the applicants having sufficient personal space or being able to freely move around that same dilapidated facility.
13. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all six applicants.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage:
– EUR 13,800 to the first applicant;
– EUR 5,800 to the second applicant;
– EUR 7,000 to the third applicant;
– EUR 14,600 to the fourth applicant;
– EUR 7,600 to the fifth applicant;
– EUR 11,800 to the sixth applicant.
15. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all six applicants;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage:
(i) EUR 13,800 (thirteen thousand eight hundred euros) to the first applicant;
(ii) EUR 5,800 (five thousand eight hundred euros) to the second applicant;
(iii) EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the third applicant;
(iv) EUR 14,600 (fourteen thousand six hundred euros) to the fourth applicant;
(v) EUR 7,600 (seven thousand six hundred euros) to the fifth applicant;
(vi) EUR 11,800 (eleven thousand eight hundred euros) to the sixth applicant.
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Pauliine Koskelo
Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
List of cases:
| No. | Application no. | Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality |
Case name | Lodged on |
| 1. | 17774/20 | Josif OZAROVSKIJ 1953 Vilnius Lithuanian |
Ozarovskij and Others v. Lithuania | 08/04/2020 |
| 2. | 18683/20 | Kazimir ČEMINAVA 1983 Alytus Lithuanian |
Čeminava v. Lithuania | 16/04/2020 |
| 3. | 38136/20 | Pavelas MEŽUJEVAS 1973 Alytus Lithuanian |
Mežujevas v. Lithuania | 19/08/2020 |
| 4. | 40080/20 | Žydrūnas MARCINKONIS 1983 Alytus Lithuanian |
Marcinkonis v. Lithuania | 22/08/2020 |
| 5. | 43904/20 | Mindaugas ŽIBAS 1966 Klaipėda Lithuanian |
Žibas v. Lithuania | 24/09/2020 |
| 6. | 45373/20 | Erikas LEVICKAS 1980 Kaišiadorys Lithuanian |
Levickas v. Lithuania | 01/10/2020 |
Leave a Reply