{"id":18143,"date":"2022-03-01T19:14:04","date_gmt":"2022-03-01T19:14:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18143"},"modified":"2022-03-01T19:14:04","modified_gmt":"2022-03-01T19:14:04","slug":"case-of-einikis-and-others-v-lithuania-european-court-of-human-rights-43277-20-and-4-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18143","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF EINIKIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 43277\/20 and 4 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF EINIKIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 43277\/20 and 4 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 March 2022<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Einikis and Others v. Lithuania,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Pauliine Koskelo, President,
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by the applicants listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention to the Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) represented by their Agent, Ms\u00a0K.\u00a0Bubnyt\u0117\u2011\u0160irmen\u0117, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2022,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The cases concern the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention.<\/p>\n

2. The applicants were detained at Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison. Their applications concern the following periods:<\/p>\n

– Mr Einikis (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d) \u2013 from 18 August 2017 to 28 August 2018;<\/p>\n

– Mr Babushkin (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d) \u2013 from 15 February 2016 to 25\u00a0May 2016;<\/p>\n

– Mr Valeika (\u201cthe third applicant\u201d) \u2013 from 14 August 2015 to 16 May 2018;<\/p>\n

– Mr Markin (\u201cthe fourth applicant\u201d) \u2013 from 16 September 2016 to 19\u00a0February 2019;<\/p>\n

– Mr Blo\u017e\u0117 (\u201cthe fifth applicant\u201d \u2013 from 19 December 2017 to 19\u00a0September 2018.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

– the first applicant \u2013 790 euros (EUR) for 263 days in unsuitable conditions;<\/p>\n

– the second applicant \u2013 EUR 300 for 101 days;<\/p>\n

– the third applicant \u2013 EUR 1,600 for 819 days;<\/p>\n

– the fourth applicant \u2013 EUR 1,500 for 886 days;<\/p>\n

– the fifth applicant \u2013 EUR 500 for 269 days.<\/p>\n

5. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the compensation awarded to them for inadequate conditions of detention was insufficient.<\/p>\n

THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0Lithuania, nos. 40828\/12 and 6\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 99-100, 8 December 2015).<\/p>\n

8. The Court further notes that the applicants\u2019 complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

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, \u00a7\u00a0149, 10\u00a0January 2012) and Mur\u0161i\u0107 v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a0106, 20\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n

10. According to the documents in the Court\u2019s possession, the sanitary facilities in the applicants\u2019 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\u2019 cells at the relevant time. Therefore, the Court is unable to rely on that submission (compare and contrast Michno and Dimbinskas v.\u00a0Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], nos.\u00a034179\/18 and 35033\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a020 and 26, 26 November 2019). Accordingly, it finds it established that the applicants did not have sufficient privacy when using sanitary facilities.<\/p>\n

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\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

12. In several cases concerning Luki\u0161k\u0117s 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.\u00a0Lithuania [Committee], no. 14411\/16, \u00a7\u00a7 44-45, 25 September 2018; Vi\u0161niakovas v.\u00a0Lithuania [Committee], no. 25988\/16, \u00a7\u00a7 31-33, 18\u00a0December 2018; and Steponavi\u010dius v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 6982\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a018-19, 17\u00a0December 2019).<\/p>\n

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 Vi\u0161niakovas, \u00a7\u00a032, and Steponavi\u010dius, \u00a7 19, both cited above). As a result, the Court has no grounds to reach a different conclusion than in the previous cases.<\/p>\n

14. Therefore, having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforementioned factors (see Canali v. France, no. 40119\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 52-53, 25\u00a0April 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.<\/p>\n

15. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention in respect of all five applicants.<\/p>\n

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

– EUR 5,600 to the first applicant;<\/p>\n

– EUR 2,500 to the second applicant;<\/p>\n

– EUR 12,600 to the third applicant;<\/p>\n

– EUR 13,500 to the fourth applicant;<\/p>\n

– EUR 5,900 to the fifth applicant.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all five applicants;<\/p>\n

4. Holds<\/p>\n

(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:<\/p>\n

(i) EUR 5,600 (five thousand six hundred euros) to the first applicant;<\/p>\n

(i) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) to the second applicant;<\/p>\n

(ii) EUR 12,600 (twelve thousand six hundred euros) to the third applicant;<\/p>\n

(iii) EUR 13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred euros) to the fourth applicant;<\/p>\n

(iv) EUR 5,900 (five thousand nine hundred euros) to the fifth applicant;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 March 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Pauliine Koskelo
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

List of cases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\n		Case name<\/strong><\/td>\nLodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n43277\/20<\/td>\nMarius EINIKIS
\n1978
\nDid\u017eiasalis
\nLithuanian<\/strong><\/td>\n		Einikis v. Lithuania<\/td>\n16\/11\/2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n49994\/20<\/td>\nAlixey BABUSHKIN
\n1977
\nVilnius
\nRussian<\/strong><\/td>\n		Babushkin v. Lithuania<\/td>\n22\/10\/2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n50514\/20<\/td>\nVirginijus VALEIKA
\n1972
\nMarijampol\u0117
\nLithuanian<\/strong><\/td>\n		Valeika v. Lithuania<\/td>\n27\/10\/2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n51079\/20<\/td>\nAleksandr MARKIN
\n1980
\nMarijampol\u0117
\nLithuanian<\/strong><\/td>\n		Markin v. Lithuania<\/td>\n30\/10\/2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n54383\/20<\/td>\nDarius BLO\u017d\u0116
\n1972
\nBaisogala
\nLithuanian<\/strong><\/td>\n		Blo\u017e\u0117 v. Lithuania<\/td>\n21\/11\/2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n