FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF KAZLAUSKAS AND NANARTONIS v. LITHUANIA
\n(Applications nos. 234\/15 and 22357\/15)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n4 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kazlauskas and Nanartonis 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 13 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in two applications (nos.\u00a0234\/15 and 22357\/15) 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 two Lithuanian nationals, Mr Aidas Kazlauskas (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d) and Mr Marius Nanartonis (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), on 9 December 2014 and 27 April 2015 respectively.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant, who was granted legal aid, was represented by Ms\u00a0L.\u00a0Me\u0161kauskait\u0117, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The second applicant was granted leave to represent himself in the proceedings before the Court. The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms\u00a0K.\u00a0Bubnyt\u0117\u2011\u0160irmen\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged, in particular,that they had been unable to receive portable digital music (MP3) players from persons other than their spouse, partner or a close relative. The second applicant also alleged that his conditions of detention in the Prison Hospital had been inadequate.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2017 the above complaints were communicated to the Government; the remaining parts of the applications were declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule\u00a054\u00a0\u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant was born in 1968 and is detained in Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison; the second applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant\u2019s attempts to change the legal provisions concerning convicted inmates\u2019 right to receive electronic devices<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In February 2014 the first applicant lodged a petition with the Parliamentary Commission on Petitions (\u201cthe Commission\u201d), requesting a change to the wording of the provision of the Code for the Execution of Sentences in order that it would read that electronic items could be given to inmates by their friends and acquaintances as well as by their spouses, partners and close relatives. In March 2014 the Commission decided not to examine the first applicant\u2019s petition as it was not clear enough. In March\u00a02014 the first applicant lodged a new petition with the Commission. In April\u00a02014 the Commission informed the first applicant that his petition would be examined. In June 2014 the Commission examined the first applicant\u2019s petition and decided to dismiss it. Addressing the first applicant\u2019s proposal that Article96\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences be amended so that it would permit inmates to receive electronic items from their acquaintances or friends, as well as from their spouses, partners or close relatives, the Commission held that the existing regulation was aimed at preventing inmates from receiving items acquired by criminal means \u2013 for example, by their accomplices in crime. In June 2014 the Lithuanian Parliament dismissed the first applicant\u2019s proposal that Article\u00a096\u00a7\u00a01 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences be amended.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the information provided by the Government that from 2007 onwards the first applicant had a computer game player, a computer game, and a television set; moreover, in November 2014 he purchased a laptop with his own money. It also appears from the information submitted by the Government that the applicant has a sister, a brother, an aunt, an uncle and a cousin (that is to say close relatives).<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings regarding the conditions of the second applicant\u2019s detention in the Prison Hospital<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 September 2013 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court alleging overcrowding and other inadequate sanitary conditions inthe Prison Hospital. He alleged that he had been confined to the Prison Hospital from 22 March until 4\u00a0April 2010, from 25\u00a0February until 4\u00a0March 2011, from 21 until 27 September 2011, and from 17\u00a0until 24\u00a0January2014. He subsequently provided a specified complaint (patikslintas skundas \u2013 that is to say a complaint in which he clarified certain issues).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ascertained that the second applicant had been confined to the Prison Hospital from 22\u00a0March until 13 April 2010, from 25 February until 4\u00a0March 2011, from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17 until 24\u00a0January 2014. The court also applied the three-year statutory time\u2011limit to part of the second applicant\u2019s complaint. It held that the second applicant had been placed in overcrowded wards for fifteen days and awarded him 100 Lithuanian litai (LTL \u2013 approximately 29 euros (EUR)) in compensation for the fifteen daysthat he had spent in overcrowded wards during the periods from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17 until 24\u00a0January 2014. The second applicant\u2019s other grievances were dismissed as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant appealed, and on 9 December 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. However, it held that the first-instance court had erred in determining the relevant amount of personal space. The court held that under domestic regulations, a person confined to the Prison Hospital had to have at least 5.1square metres of personal space. The court recalculated the number of days and held that between 25 February 2011 and 4\u00a0March 2011 the second applicant had had 4.05 square metres of personal space at his disposal, and that between 17\u00a0and 24 January 2014 he had had 2.83 square metres of personal space. The court held that it was impossible to determine how much personal space the second applicant had had between 21 and 27 September 2011; accordingly, it calculated in favour of the second applicant the number ofdays during which he had not had enough personal space (that is to say the court calculated the number of such days and, in the absence of specific data, stated that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for more days than he probably had been held there). It thenruled that he had not had enough personal space for twenty days in total. However, he had been able to move around the Prison Hospital from 6\u00a0a.m. until 10 p.m., and he had also been able spend time outside.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings regarding the refusal to allow the second applicant to receive an MP3 player from J.G.<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 July 2013 the second applicant lodged a request withthe administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to be allowed to receive a portable digital music (MP3) player from J.G., a person who was not his relative. On 17 July 2013 his request was refused.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In July\u00a02013, the second applicant lodged a complaintabout the above\u2011mentioned refusal with the Prison Department, which replied in August 2013 that the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility had acted in accordance with domestic law.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 August 2013 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court regarding the refusal of the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive an MP3 player from someone to whom he was not related. He asked the court to oblige the Correctional Facility administration to issue him with permission to receive equipment and other items from acquaintances in view of the fact that his relatives were not visiting him, and to award him compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 10,137.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 January 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ruled that the second applicant could receive an MP3 player from his spouse, partner or a close relative. However, as the person who had offered to bring him the player did not fall within the category of such persons, the refusal of the Vilnius Correctional Facility administration had been lawful. The court had no doubts about the relevant provisions of domestic law and observed that they were designed to motivate inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties. The court furthermore observed that (among other items) MP3 players did not constitute essential items but rather entertainment items. It therefore dismissed the second applicant\u2019s complaint.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant appealed, and on 30 October 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. The court held that the second applicant had not denied that he had close relatives, but had simply submitted that they were not visiting him. The second applicant found himself in the same position as that of other inmates. His right to have an MP3 player had not been denied, as he could have purchased one. It was not prohibited for persons other than close relatives to give money to convicted inmates; thus, the second applicant could have received money with which to buy an MP3 player.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the information provided by the Government that the second applicant had been working in Vilnius Correctional Facility from 2\u00a0July 2012 until 31 March 2014 and had been receiving remuneration for his work.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 April 2014 the second applicant asked the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive an MP3 player by post from his mother, J.U. On 5 May 2014 his request was refused because domestic law did not provide the possibility to send items to inmates by post.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 March 2015 the second applicant lodged a request with the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to be allowed to receive certain electronic items (a television monitor and related parts, such as headphones) from his partner, K.J. His request was granted.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the information provided by the Government that the second applicant received a personal computer in January 2011 (which he returned to his relatives in June 2011); another personal computer, a monitor and headphones in June 2011 (which he returned to his relatives in July 2016);and a USB key (which was destroyed at the second applicant\u2019s request in December 2016) and a laptop in August 2016.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0From the information provided by the Government it appears that the applicant was able to watch television as there were specially equipped rooms which the inmates could use at any time, given that they could freely move around the premises of Vilnius Correctional Facility.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0For the relevant domestic law and practice and international material regarding conditions of detention, see Mironovas and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania (nos.\u00a040828\/12 and 6 others, \u00a7\u00a7 50\u201169, 8 December 2015).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Article 33 of the Constitution provides that citizens shall be guaranteed the right of petition; the procedure for the implementation of this right shall be established by law.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0Article 1 \u00a7 4 of the Law on Petitions provides that petition is a written or electronic application to the Seimas, the Government or municipality with requests or suggestions to deal with certain questions, when it is necessary to adopt a new legal act, to amend, complement or annul an existing legal act and when the commissions on petitions declare such application a petition. The definition of a petition was reiterated in the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 January 2006.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time, Article 96 \u00a7 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provided that convicted inmates (except for inmates placed under a disciplinary regime) were allowed to use television sets, computers, video and portable digital music players, radio sets, computer-game devices and other items listed in the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities. Such items could be purchased with the inmates\u2019 own money or could be given to them by their spouses, partners or close relatives.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Article 98 \u00a7 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences, as worded at the time in question,provided that convicted inmates were allowed to receive money transfers from and to transfer money to their spouses, partners and close relatives, or (with the permission of the director of the correctional facility in question or any other officer acting on the director\u2019s behalf)from\/to other persons.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0As of 23 June 2015, Article 96 \u00a7 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provides that convicted inmates (except for those placed under a disciplinary regime or confined to cells) are allowed to use electronic devices and other items listed in the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities (Pataisos \u012fstaig\u0173 vidaus tvarkos taisykl\u0117s). Such items can be purchased with the convicted inmates\u2019 own money or given to them.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time, point 173 of the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities provided that convicted inmates (except for inmates placed under a disciplinary regime) were allowed to use items they had purchased or received: radios, shavers, video players, computer-game devices, portable digital music players, television sets with screens measuring up to 51\u00a0centimetres across (that is to say from corner to corner), computers, water heaters, hair dryers, electric kettles, toasters, sandwich makers, musical instruments, CDs and other data-storage devices with up to 4\u00a0GB of capacity, and lamps, as well asbedding (except for blankets, mattresses and pillows) in the event that the convicted inmate had refused in writing to accept the bedding allotted to him.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 March 2016 the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities were amended and point 173 was removed.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0Order No. V-124, which wasissued on 11 May 2010 by the director of the prisons department of the Ministry of Justice, provided that personal space for inmates held in a remand prison cell or arrest cell could not be less than 3.6 square metres. The same requirement was applicable to the wards of the Prison Hospital.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Article 3.135 of the Civil Code defines \u201cclose relatives\u201d as persons related by direct consanguinity up to the second degree (that is to say parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren) and persons related by collateral consanguinity to the second degree (\u0161onin\u0117s linijos antrojo laipsnio giminai\u010diai \u2013 that is to say siblings).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Given the similarities of the present applications, the Court decides to order their joinder pursuant to Article 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant complained that that the conditions of his detention in the Prison Hospital had been inadequate. He relied on Article\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that the second applicant\u2019s conditions of detention in the Prison Hospital had not attained the minimum level of severity required for them to fall within the scope of Article 3 because the lack of space had been compensated for by freedom of movement and access to fresh air. Moreover, they claimed that the periods during which the applicant had been held in overcrowded wards had been short \u2013 specifically, between six and seven days at a time.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Government also argued that in any event,under Lithuanian law a claim for damages could in principle constitute a remedy in respect of the applicant\u2019s allegations that the conditions of his detention had been poor. In deciding on the amount of compensation to be awarded in such cases, the domestic courts assessed a number of criteria, such as the duration, extent of the violation in question and the impact of the violation on the convicted person\u2019s health, the actions of the victim of the violation, the economic living conditions in Lithuania, case-law established by similar cases, and the criteria regarding equity, fairness and reasonableness, and the principle of proportionality, as well as other criteria. In that connection, the Government stated that in establishing the violation in the present case, the domestic authorities had taken into account those criteria and had awarded the second applicant compensation of EUR 29 in respect of the three periods of twenty non-consecutive days during which he had been held in overcrowded wards.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant did not comment on that issue.<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n