Communicated on 9 October 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 74452/13 Romanas DARDANSKIS against Lithuania and 17 other applications (see table appended)

The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. Their details are provided in the annex.

A. The circumstances of the ca ses

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

All the applicants have been convicted to life imprisonment (or initially to death penalty, which later was changed to life imprisonment) and serve their sentences either in Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison or in Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution.

In 2016 the applicant Mr H. Daktaras (case no. 48303/16) asked Luki š k ė s Prison administration to be taken to an outside hospital to a dentist, or that a dentist would come to prison, so that the applicant could have dental implants. He explained that the prison doctor could repair teeth, but he did not provide implants. The applicant stated that he was ready to pay for the services of the dentist. The prison administration refused the applicant ’ s request. He then lodged an appeal with the Prison Department, but was unsuccessful.

By a decision of 6 February 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant ’ s appeal. Relying, inter alia , on the Court ’ s judgment in V.D. v. Romania (no. 7078/02 , 1 6 February 2010), the administrative court held that Luki š k ė s Prison administration and the Prison Department had given only formal replies, without having examined whether the applicant ’ s condition required dental implants. The administrative court ordered Lukiškės Prison administration to make sure that the applicant ’ s medical condition was properly examined and, if necessary, to provide him with the possibility to obtain services of a doctor so that he could obtain dental implants.

It transpires from the documents in the Court ’ s possession that Lukiškės Prison administration appealed against the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ’ s decision.

B. Relevant law and practice as regards life sentences

As regards life prisoners, the domestic law and practice is set out in detail in Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, § § 61-110, 23 May 2017). The relevant European, international and comparative law, as well as the extracts from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reports concerning life prisoners ’ situation in Lithuania, are set out in paragraphs 111-119 of the said judgment.

COMPLAINTS

All the applicants complain that their life sentences are not irreducible and therefore are incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicant Mr Henrikas Daktaras (case no. 48303/16) also complains about lack of proper medical care in Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He is dissatisfied that he could not obtain dental implants inside or outside that prison, notwithstanding him being ready to bear the costs.

COMMON QUESTION

In respect of each applicant, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the fact that their life sentences are not reducible (see Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, § § 180-183, 23 May 2017)?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION

As regards the applicant H. Daktaras (case no. 48303/16), has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant not being able to receive dental care (dental implants) while serving the sentence in Luki š k ė s Prison (see Xiros v. Greece , no. 1033/07, § § 73, 75 and 76, 9 September 2010; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia , no. 34334/04, § § 102-104, 114 and 115, 15 June 2010, and Bagdonavičius v. Lithuania , no. 41252/12 , § § 69-75, 19 April 2016 )?

The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of the administrative case regarding the applicant ’ s dental care and whether Luki š k ė s Prison administration had complied with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ’ s ruling of 6 February 2017.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Complaints to be communicated

74452/13

22/11/2013

Romanas DARDANSKIS

23/06/1968

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

583/14

25/12/2013

Aleksandr MARKIN

27/07/1980

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

23542/14

17/03/2014

Ričardas BARATINSKAS

23/09/1964

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

24971/14

20/03/2014

Viktor SMIRNOV

13/11/1968

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

32519/14

15/04/2014

Vygantas RAILA

27/02/1968

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

38916/14

19/05/2014

Rolandas PALUKAITIS

13/04/1973

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

Andrejus VAVILOVAS

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

46591/14

17/06/2014

Gintaras RAILA

22/01/1966

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

Ričardas MIRONOVAS

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

46640/14

17/06/2014

Audrius SINKEVIÄŒIUS

19/03/1978

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

49765/14

01/07/2014

Darius AMBRASAS

08/01/1973

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

60038/14

08/08/2014

Andrej PAVLOV

02/06/1977

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

14696/15

19/03/2015

Rimas BRAŽINSKAS

23/06/1972

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

16039/15

24/03/2015

Ričardas KARENDA

09/08/1974

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

19405/15

26/03/2015

Jevgenij PAVLOV

04/05/1974

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

23905/15

11/05/2015

Rolandas SVIRBUTAVIÄŒIUS

01/02/1971

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

24187/15

06/05/2015

Eugenijus Å EDYS

29/07/1960

Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s Correctional Institution, Pravieni Å¡ k Ä— s

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

48303/16

12/08/2016

Henrikas DAKTARAS

12/12/1957

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

Vytautas SIRVYDIS

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

2. Article 3 – lack of appropriate health care in prison

51216/16

16/08/2016

Audrius ANDRUÅ AITIS

09/03/1968

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention

33339/17

24/04/2017

Algimantas VERTELKA

13/02/1961

Luki Å¡ k Ä— s Prison, Vilnius

1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant ’ s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention