FOURTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 38686\/16
\nRomualdas GASKA
\nagainst Lithuania<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 2016,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Romualdas Gaska, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Alytus. He had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by Ms J. Samuolyt\u0117, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnyt\u0117-\u0160irmen\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant has been detained in the Alytus Correctional Facility since 9 March 2012.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0In 2014 he submitted a civil claim against the State, alleging that he had been detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells, that he had had insufficient time to use the shower and that he had been exposed to passive smoking. He claimed 30,000\u00a0Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 8,700\u00a0euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 September 2014 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim. It found that during the entire period under consideration, except for 169 days when he had been transported outside of the correctional facility, the applicant had had 2.24 sq. m of personal space, in violation of the domestic standard of 3.1 sq. m. However, the court found that the sanitary conditions in the cells had complied with relevant domestic hygiene norms and that the applicant had not proved that he had been exposed to passive smoking. It also dismissed as unproven the applicant\u2019s claim that his health had deteriorated. The court further underlined that the applicant was detained in a dormitory-type facility, he was able to move around freely during the day, and various leisure and educational activities were available. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was dismissed.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision but on 2\u00a0May\u00a02016 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed it. The court upheld the first-instance court\u2019s findings with regard to the personal space available to the applicant. It also found that during certain periods there may have been breaches of domestic regulations concerning the light available in the cells and the applicant\u2019s exposure to passive smoking. However, the court reiterated that the applicant was detained in a dormitory-type facility, he was able to move around freely during the day, and various leisure and educational activities were available. It therefore considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient and that there was no need to make an award to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0He 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that he had been detained in overcrowded and unsanitary dormitory-type rooms in Alytus Correctional Facility and that he had been exposed to passive smoking. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n