Last Updated on March 1, 2022 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF EINIKIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
(Applications nos. 43277/20 and 4 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 Einikis 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 complaints concerning the conditions of the applicants’ detention to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė‑Širmenė, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
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 Lukiškės Remand Prison. Their applications concern the following periods:
– Mr Einikis (“the first applicant”) – from 18 August 2017 to 28 August 2018;
– Mr Babushkin (“the second applicant”) – from 15 February 2016 to 25 May 2016;
– Mr Valeika (“the third applicant”) – from 14 August 2015 to 16 May 2018;
– Mr Markin (“the fourth applicant”) – from 16 September 2016 to 19 February 2019;
– Mr Bložė (“the fifth applicant” – from 19 December 2017 to 19 September 2018.
3. On various dates the applicants complained to the administrative courts that they had been unable to use sanitary facilities in private because those facilities had not been properly partitioned from the remaining area of their cells.
4. The administrative courts acknowledged that the applicants had been unable to use sanitary facilities in private, in violation to relevant domestic regulations. They were awarded the following amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage:
– the first applicant – 790 euros (EUR) for 263 days in unsuitable conditions;
– the second applicant – EUR 300 for 101 days;
– the third applicant – EUR 1,600 for 819 days;
– the fourth applicant – EUR 1,500 for 886 days;
– the fifth applicant – EUR 500 for 269 days.
5. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the compensation awarded to them for inadequate conditions of detention was insufficient.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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
7. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, in view of the favourable decisions taken by the domestic courts (see paragraph 4 above). However, the amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage are significantly lower than those made by the Court in comparable circumstances and thus cannot be considered to provide adequate redress. Accordingly, the Court finds that the five applicants retain their victim status under Article 34 of the Convention (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 99-100, 8 December 2015).
8. The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints 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.
9. The general principles concerning conditions of detention, particularly with regard to the partitioning of sanitary facilities, have been summarised in Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 149, 10 January 2012) and Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, § 106, 20 October 2016).
10. According to the documents in the Court’s possession, the sanitary facilities in the applicants’ cells were separated from the rest of the cell with a 1.5-metre wall. The Government submitted that, in addition to the said wall, the entrances to the sanitary facilities were covered with curtains. However, they did not provide any evidence demonstrating that such curtains had been installed in the applicants’ cells at the relevant time. Therefore, the Court is unable to rely on that submission (compare and contrast Michno and Dimbinskas v. Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], nos. 34179/18 and 35033/18, §§ 20 and 26, 26 November 2019). Accordingly, it finds it established that the applicants did not have sufficient privacy when using sanitary facilities.
11. The Government further argued that the lack of privacy when using sanitary facilities had been the only hardship which the applicants had had to endure, and thus, the conditions of their detention had not been such as to attain the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention.
12. In several cases concerning Lukiškės Remand Prison, the Court, relying on reports issued by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the fact that, in addition to the inadequate partitioning of sanitary facilities, the applicants had been locked up in their cells for twenty-three hours a day and had not been able to freely move around the prison during the day (see Oskirko v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 14411/16, §§ 44-45, 25 September 2018; Višniakovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 25988/16, §§ 31-33, 18 December 2018; and Steponavičius v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 6982/18, §§ 18-19, 17 December 2019).
13. Although the Government submitted that detainees were able to leave their cells to meet their defence counsel, receive family visits, go to the gym or take part in various social activities, they did not provide information regarding the individual situation of the applicants in the present case and the time that each of them had spent outside their cells (see Višniakovas, § 32, and Steponavičius, § 19, both cited above). As a result, the Court has no grounds to reach a different conclusion than in the previous cases.
14. Therefore, having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforementioned factors (see Canali v. France, no. 40119/09, §§ 52-53, 25 April 2013), the Court finds that the applicants, who were not afforded sufficient privacy and who were confined to their cells most of the day, must have endured distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.
15. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all five applicants.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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 5,600 to the first applicant;
– EUR 2,500 to the second applicant;
– EUR 12,600 to the third applicant;
– EUR 13,500 to the fourth applicant;
– EUR 5,900 to the fifth applicant.
17. 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 five 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 5,600 (five thousand six hundred euros) to the first applicant;
(i) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) to the second applicant;
(ii) EUR 12,600 (twelve thousand six hundred euros) to the third applicant;
(iii) EUR 13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred euros) to the fourth applicant;
(iv) EUR 5,900 (five thousand nine hundred euros) to the fifth 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. | 43277/20 | Marius EINIKIS 1978 Didžiasalis Lithuanian |
Einikis v. Lithuania | 16/11/2020 |
| 2. | 49994/20 | Alixey BABUSHKIN 1977 Vilnius Russian |
Babushkin v. Lithuania | 22/10/2020 |
| 3. | 50514/20 | Virginijus VALEIKA 1972 Marijampolė Lithuanian |
Valeika v. Lithuania | 27/10/2020 |
| 4. | 51079/20 | Aleksandr MARKIN 1980 Marijampolė Lithuanian |
Markin v. Lithuania | 30/10/2020 |
| 5. | 54383/20 | Darius BLOŽĖ 1972 Baisogala Lithuanian |
Bložė v. Lithuania | 21/11/2020 |
Leave a Reply