Communicated on 20 April 2018

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 9044/17 and 48545/17 Peep HAVIK against Estonia and Andres VAIK against Estonia lodged on 20 January 2017 and 4 July 2017 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

Both applicants were tried in the same criminal proceedings. The complaints in both cases concern the length of applicants ’ pre-trial detention. The complaint in case no. 48545/17 also concerns the particular prison conditions which the applicant complains of being unsuitable considering his physical condition.

A. Length of detention

The applicant in the case no. 9044/17 ( Hav ik ) was tried on charges of forming an organised criminal group ( kuritegeliku ühenduse moodustamine ) and extortion by an organised criminal group ( väljapressimine kuritegeliku ühenduse poolt ) . He was detained as a suspect ( kahtlustatavana kinnipidamine ) on 14 April 2014 and a court order for his detention was issued on grounds that he might reoffend on 16 April 2014. His detention was repeatedly extended. The applicant informed the Court on 26 October 2017 that a court judgment confirming the outcome of the settlement proceedings ( kokkuleppemenetlus ) in his respect should become final on 28 October 2017. That means that the applicant spent altogether 3 years, 6 months and 14 days in pre-trial detention.

The applicant in case no. 48545/17 ( Vaik ) was tried on charges of being a member of an organised criminal group ( kuritegelikku ühendusse kuulumine ), trafficking in human beings ( inimkaubandus ), money laundering ( rahapesu ), counterfeiting documents and using such documents ( dokumendi võltsimine ja võltsitud dokumendi kasutamine ). He was detained as a suspect on 14 April 2014 and on the same day a court order for his detention was issued on grounds that he might reoffend. His detention was repeatedly extended. The app licant informed the Court on 20 September 2017 that his detention had been terminated by the Harju County Court decision of 19 September 2017 on grounds of his health and had been replaced by a prohibition to leave his place of residence. He spent altogether 3 years, 5 months and 7 days in pre-trial detention.

B. Conditions of detention

The applicant in case no. 48545/17 complains that, taking into account his physical condition (he was paraplegic and in a wheelchair), the conditions of detention in Tallinn, Tartu and Viru Prisons and transport between those prisons violated Article 3 of the Convention. He mentions, in particular, not being granted special diet, not having access to assistance and to neurological and physical rehabilitation services, having difficulties of moving around the prison and taking care of personal hygiene in a wheelchair (and medical problems resulting therefrom) and being often transported from one prison to another notwithstanding his physical condition. His detention was terminated on grounds of health by the Harju County Court decision of 19 September 2017.

1. Common QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Was the length of the applicants ’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania , no. 36249/14, 2 May 2017; Chyła v. Poland , no. 8384/08, 3 November 2015; Trifković v. Croatia , no. 36653/09, 6 November 2012) ? In particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicants ’ continued detention, did the competent authorities consider alternative preventive measures and display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicants, as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit all information and documents concerning the repeated extension of both applicants ’ pre-trial detention and specify when did the detention end with respe ct of the applicant in case no. 9044/17 ( Havik ).

2. QUESTIONS in respect of individual applications

Application no. 48545/17 Vaik v. Estonia

1. In view of the applicant ’ s disabilities, can it be said that his detention in Tallinn, Tartu and Viru Prisons and the transport between the prisons constituted inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13 , 10 May 2016; Grimailovs v. Latvia , no. 6087/03, 25 June 2013; Cara- Damiani v. Italy , no. 2447/05, 7 February 2012)?

The Government are invited to submit all information about the detention of the applicant in different prisons, the relevant prison conditions and conditions of transport between those prisons as well as the medical expert reports of 1 June 2015 and 11 May 2017 concerning his health.

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?