Communicated on 3 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 22409/18 Virgo RAUDSEPP against Estonia lodged on 7 May 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application under Article 3 concerns consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments resulting in protracted period of solitary confinement of the applicant who had allegedly already suffered from psychological problems.

The Viru Prison issued, on 7 August 2017 and 18 August 2017, altogether three decisions against the applicant in disciplinary proceedings sentencing him to, respectively, 30 days, 30 days and 25 days of solitary confinement ( kartserikaristus ) for having disobeyed, on three separate occasions, the orders to perform cleaning tasks at the prison. By that time, the applicant had allegedly already spent 205 days in solitary confinement. It appears that the applicant had been authorised by the doctors to work. However, he objected (being supported by the medical opinion of the prison psychiatrist) that long-term solitary confinement was detrimental to his physical and mental health. The applicant challenged the three decisions (annulment action, tühistamiskaebus ) and asked for an interim measure to be applied in order to stop the enforcement of the disciplinary punishments. Domestic courts refused to grant the interim measure because he had in the meanwhile spent four days in prison ’ s medical unit. It appears that the main proceedings concerning the annulment decisions imposing disciplinary punishments are still ongoing.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. In the view of the ongoing main proceedings concerning the annulment of the decisions imposing disciplinary punishment, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, can the action for annulment of the decisions imposing disciplinary punishments be considered an effective remedy given that:

(a) the applicant ’ s complaint to the Court does not focus on the disciplinary punishment as such but on the impact of consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments (see the differentiation drawn in Tartu Administrative Court ’ s decision of 27 September 2017 in the applicant ’ s case number 3-17-1882, paragraphs 8 and 9; see also the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 4 June 2018 in case no. 3-15-2943, paragraphs 14 and 19),

(b) the decisions imposing disciplinary punishment do not provide the timeframe for enforcement, but in practice the disciplinary punishments are enforced consecutively, that is, without leaving a break between the enforcement of the decisions (see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 21 March 2013 in case no. 3-3-1-79-12, paragraph 9; compare with the Supreme Court judgment of 10 October 2017 in case no. 3-15-3133, paragraph 18)?

Moreover, can a possible action for damages be considered an effective remedy under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 4 June 2018 in case no. 3-15-2943)?

2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in view of his prolonged solitary confinement? Was the enforcement of disciplinary punishments resulting in solitary confinement accompanied by procedural safeguards guaranteeing the prisoner ’ s welfare and the proportionality of the measure? In particular, was the applicant ’ s physical and mental condition monitored and his physical or psychological capacity to deal with long-term solitary confinement assessed when the decisions to enforce the disciplinary punishments were taken? ( see Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, 6 March 2014; Razvyazkin v. Russia , no. 13579/09, 3 July 2012; Csüllög v. Hungary , no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011; Onoufriou v. Cyprus , no. 24407/04 , 7 January 2010 ).