Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55681/15
Richardas KAZĖNAS
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Motoc, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Richardas Kazėnas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1955 and is detained in Alytus. He had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by Ms I. Abramavičiūtė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The applicant was detained in Pravieniškės Correctional Facility from 13 June 2013 to 19 February 2016.
4. In 2014 he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014 he had been detained in overcrowded and unsanitary dormitory-type rooms and disciplinary cells, and that the amount of food given to him had been insufficient. He claimed 70,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 20,270 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
5. On 17 February 2015 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim. It found that during certain periods when the applicant had been serving disciplinary penalties he had had less than 3.6 sq. m of personal space, contrary to the domestic requirements applicable to disciplinary cells. It also found that during certain periods when the applicant had been kept in dormitory‑type rooms he had had less than 3.1 sq. m of personal space, contrary to the domestic requirements applicable to such rooms. The court did not specify the exact amount of personal space which had been available to the applicant on specific dates.
6. However, on the basis of reports submitted by domestic public healthcare authorities, the court found that the sanitary conditions in the rooms and disciplinary cells had complied with the relevant domestic hygiene norms and the amount of food given to the applicant had also complied with the relevant legal requirements. It also underlined that the applicant had been detained in a dormitory-type facility and, except for the periods when he had been serving disciplinary penalties resulting from his own failure to comply with the regulations of the facility, he had been able to move around freely during the day and various leisure and educational activities had been available to him. Therefore, the court considered that the lack of personal space had been compensated by other factors, and dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
7. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and on 5 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld in part his appeal. It found that during certain periods from June to December 2013 the applicant had had 2.77 sq. m of personal space and that for the remaining period of detention the personal space available to him had been more than 3 sq. m but not always in compliance with the relevant domestic requirements (see paragraph 5 above). However, it upheld the lower court’s conclusion as to the sanitary conditions of the applicant’s detention. The court considered that the period during which the applicant had had insufficient personal space had been long and thus warranted making an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was awarded EUR 800.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice and international materials
8. For the relevant domestic law and practice and international materials, see §§ 50‑69 of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, 8 December 2015).
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention.
10. He also complained, without invoking a specific provision of the Convention, that the domestic proceedings for damages had not constituted an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
11. The applicant submitted that from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014 he had been kept in overcrowded and unsanitary dormitory‑type rooms and disciplinary cells in Pravieniškės Correctional Facility. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
12. The Government submitted that during the entire period under consideration the applicant had had more than 3 sq. m of personal space. They provided a table indicating the exact personal space available to him in each dormitory‑type room and disciplinary cell from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014. According to that table, during the relevant period the applicant had from 3.55 to 6.15 sq. m of personal space. The Government submitted that the domestic courts’ finding that during certain periods the personal space available to the applicant had fallen below 3 sq. m had referred to his detention from June to December 2013 (see paragraph 7 above) which was beyond the scope of his complaint before the domestic courts and before the Court (see paragraphs 4 and 11 above).
13. The Government further submitted that, as found by the domestic courts, the applicant had been detained in appropriate sanitary conditions and had had sufficient freedom of movement outside his cell (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). They therefore considered his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention to be manifestly ill-founded.
14. The Government lastly argued that, in any event, the applicant had been awarded sufficient compensation by the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 7 above) and could thus no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3.
15. The Court reiterates that where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them. Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93, ECHR 2010, and the cases cited therein).
16. In the present case, the Court observes that the domestic courts, which were called to examine the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014 (see paragraph 4 above), did not explicitly establish whether during that period the personal space available to him had fallen below 3 sq. m, and that some of their findings concerned a different period than the one complained of by the applicant (see paragraphs 5 and 7 above). In the proceedings before this Court, the Government submitted a table indicating the exact personal space available to the applicant on each day of his detention from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014 (see paragraph 12 above). The Court has no reason to doubt the accuracy of that information (see, for a similar situation, Butkus and Remeikis v. Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], nos. 42468/16 and 51911/16, § 23, 10 April 2018). In such circumstances, the Court considers it established that during the entire period under consideration the applicant had more than 3 sq. m of personal space.
17. The Court reiterates that in cases where a prison cell measuring in the range of 3 to 4 sq. m of personal space per inmate is at issue, the space factor remains a weighty factor in the Court’s assessment of the adequacy of conditions of detention. In such instances a violation of Article 3 will be found if the space factor is coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention related to, in particular, access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, availability of ventilation, adequacy of room temperature, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygiene requirements (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 139, ECHR 2016).
18. Having examined the documents submitted to it by the parties, the Court sees no reason to depart from the findings of the domestic courts that the material conditions of the applicant’s detention were appropriate and that the applicant was not confined to his room during the day and was free to move around the correctional facility, except when he was serving disciplinary penalties for failure to comply with the regulations of the correctional facility (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above).
19. In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Pravieniškės Correctional Facility from 14 December 2013 to 27 October 2014 do not disclose any appearance of violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
20. The applicant also submitted that the domestic proceedings for damages had not constituted an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
21. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had thoroughly examined the applicant’s case, acknowledged a violation of his rights and awarded him a sufficient compensation, so he had had an effective remedy.
22. Having regard of its findings concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 19 above), the Court considers that this complaint is likewise manifestly ill‑founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see Butkus and Remeikis [Committee], decision cited above, § 29).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 September 2018.
Andrea Tamietti Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply