FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF MILIUKAS v. LITHUANIA
\n(Application no. 10992\/14)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 April 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Miliukas v. Lithuania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no.\u00a010992\/14) 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 a Lithuanian national, Mr Tomas Miliukas (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 26 January 2014.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A. Rybin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms Lina Urbait\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 September 2017 the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention and the fire in the prison were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Druskininkai.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was detained in Luki\u0161k\u0117sRemandPrisonperiodicallybetween 7 June 2011 and25 May 2012. He was held in other facilities between 21 June and 5 July 2011; 30 August and 6 September 2011; 27\u00a0September and 11 October 2011; 25 October and 8 November 2011; 15\u00a0and 17 November 2011; and 6 and 18 January 2012. Between those breaks, the periods he had to spend in overcrowded cells were fourteen, fifty\u2011five, twenty and a half, thirteen, six and a half, forty\u2011eight and ninety\u2011five and a half days respectively.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 January 2011 there was a fire in Luki\u0161k\u0117sRemandPrison. Theapplicantsufferedacutepoisoningcausedbysmokeinhalationandfellinto a comafor a fewhours. Afterthat, hewashospitalisedbetween\u00a07 and 18\u00a0January 2012.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 January 2012 a prie\u2011trialinvestigation was opened regarding destruction of property and serious health impairment caused by negligence.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 January 2012 a commission was set up to establish the circumstances surrounding the fire and the actions of the officers of Luki\u0161k\u0117sRemand Prison during the fire.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 August 2012 the experts received a task to answer two questions: where did the fire start and what was the reason of the fire. On 13\u00a0September 2012 an expert report stated that the fire had been caused by an electrical fault, causing short circuits and the electrothermal heating in the utility premises to break down. It also noted that eight persons had been taken to a hospital and 217 persons had been evacuated.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 January 2013 the applicant was questioned in the context of the pre\u2011trial investigation. He stated that his cellmate had woken him up and that within twenty minutes they had hardly been able to see each other because of the smoke. They had started shouting for help, the applicant had started choking, and he had not been able to breathe. He and other inmates had wet towels and put them on their faces. He remembered only that a firefighter had opened the doors of the cell and taken him by his hand, but then the applicant had fainted and later woken up in the hospital (see paragraph 13 below).<\/p>\n On the same day he asked to be granted victim status. His request was upheld later that day.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The pre\u2011trial investigation was suspended on 5 November 2013 because of the failure to determine who had caused the fire. The following investigative actions had been performed: the scene of the accident had been examined; the electrics had been inspected; various reports had been received; several witnesses had been questioned; and medical examinations of the victims had been carried out. The applicant claimed that he had not received a copy of the decision to suspend the pre-trial investigation.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The transcripts of the surveillance cameras show that one of the officers smelled smoke at 7.01 a.m. At 7.25 a.m. the officers poured water down the ventilation chamber. The fire brigade was called at 7.37\u00a0a.m., the officers were instructed how to carry out the evacuation at 7.40 a.m. and the fire brigade arrived at around 7.44 a.m. The first ambulance arrived at 8.06\u00a0a.m. The evacuation of the inmates was finished at 8.08 a.m. The ambulances started taking the victims to the hospital at 8.30\u00a0a.m., the applicant was taken to the hospital at 8.40 a.m. and the last ambulance left the prison at 8.58\u00a0a.m. It appears that the medical staff of Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison were present during the fire and that the head of the Health Care Service was instructed to organise the provision of first aid for those in need.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0InNovember 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, requesting compensation in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage for overcrowding, lack of proper separation between sanitary facilities and the cell, insufficient ventilation in Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison from 7\u00a0June 2011 until 25 May 2012 and in respect of the alleged inadequate actions of the prison authorities during the fire in that institution on 5\u00a0January 2012. The applicant claimed that he had screamed for help during the fire but owing to the untimely actions of the prison authorities he had fallen into a coma that had lasted for several hours (see paragraphs\u00a06 and 10 above). During the hearing, the applicant submitted that the inmates had been told to open the windows before the evacuation. He also confirmed that he had fainted when he had been taken to the ground floor.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In December 2012 Luki\u0161k\u0117sRemandPrisonsubmittedtheircommentsand, as regards the fire, they claimed the prison officers had been instructing the prisoners to put wet towels on their faces. The prison officers had also been given instructions on what actions to take. The medical staff distributed the inmates according to their condition and the ones who had been severely injured had been transferred to the hospital.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 January 2013 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant had not had enough personal space for 268 days, ten evenings and three mornings, and that this had constituted a violation of both the domestic norms and Article\u00a03 of the Convention. As regards proper separation between the sanitary facilities and the cell and alleged lack of ventilation, the court found no violation. As for the fire, the court held that the applicant had been hospitalised between\u00a07 and 18\u00a0January 2012 for irritation of the respiratory system due to acute poisoning caused by smoke inhalation. The applicant had been referred to a psychiatrist later and had received medication. The court further held that the prison authorities had merely provided a general description of the actions of the relevant representatives of the prison during the fire and had not provided any information about the specific actions they had taken in order to immediately remove the applicant from his cell or about the first aid he had received. Although the authorities had stated that the inmates had been instructed how to act in case of fire, the applicant had indicated that he had received no such instructions. The authorities had not indicated within what period of time the applicant had received medical help and what that help had entailed. The applicant had stated that he had spent approximately ninety minutes in a cell full of smoke. The court held that the fact that the applicant had been taken to hospital in a coma had proven that the authorities had failed to evacuate him on time. The applicant had hadbronchial asthma but the authorities had failed to provide evidence that his condition had been taken into account during the fire. The applicant\u2019s liberty had been restricted because of his status, and the responsibility for his health had fallen on Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison. However, it had not been proved that the officers had acted in a manner prescribed by the law in order to avoid negative consequences to the applicant\u2019s health. As a result, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court awarded the applicant 10,000\u00a0Lithuanian litai (LTL\u00a0\u2013\u00a0approximately 2,896 euros (EUR)) in compensation in total: LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 579) for the conditions of detention and LTL\u00a08,000 (approximately EUR 2,317) for the consequences suffered because of the fire.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the authorities appealed. On 5 August 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the authorities\u2019 appeal in part. It agreed with the first-instance decision as regards the overcrowding and the violation of both the domestic norms and Article 3 of the Convention, but held that there was no information that the prison authorities had breached the requirements for fire prevention or for evacuation of people. The court further held that the prison staff had been active in their response and thus no unlawful actions by the authorities had taken place. The court thus amended the first-instance decision and awarded the applicant LTL\u00a02,000 (approximately EUR 579) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage for overcrowding only.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0For the relevant domestic law and practice and international material on conditions of detention see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos.\u00a040828\/12 and 6\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 50-69, 8 December 2015).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Article 31 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when all the necessary procedural actions have been carried out and all the possibilities have been exhausted during the pre-trial investigation but a perpetrator has not been determined, the pre-trial investigation can be suspended by a reasoned decision of the prosecutor. Such a decision can be appealed against within seven days of the service of a copy of the decision on the victim or his or her representative.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0SCOPE OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that in his reply to the Government\u2019s observations the applicant raised a complaint concerning the alleged failure of the authorities to take necessary measures to prevent the fire in prison by repairing the electrics in due time. This complaint had not been communicated to the Government. The Court considers that this complaint does not fall within the scope of the present application and therefore there is no need for the Court to examine it (see,\u00a0mutatis mutandis,\u00a0N. v.\u00a0Romania, no.\u00a059152\/08, \u00a7 110, 28 November 2017 and the cases cited therein, as well as Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], no.\u00a078123\/13<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a034, 7\u00a0July 2018).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic authorities had failed to protect his life during the fire in Luki\u0161k\u0117sRemand Prison. He also complained that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fire.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that the Government did not challenge the applicability of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case. In any event, the Court notes that it has found Article 2 applicable in a number of cases where an individual has survived a serious incident in which the right to life or physical integrity was at stake (see R.\u0160. v. Latvia, no.\u00a044154\/14<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a063, 8\u00a0March 2018 and the references therein). The particular circumstances of the present case (see paragraph 6 above) leave no doubt as to the existence of a threat to the applicant\u2019s life or physical integrity such as to bring his complaints within the ambit of Article 2, which is therefore applicable to the present case.<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n