Communicated on 28 September 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 29826/15 and 50966/15 Viačeslav MICHNO against Lithuania and Sergėj ŠARAPAJEV against Lithuania lodged on 15 June 2015 and 10 October 2015 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

A. Facts

1. Application no. 29826/15 was lodged on 15 June 2015 by Viačeslav Mich no , who was born on 19 February 1962 and is detained in Šiauliai Remand Prison.

In April 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Å iauliai Regional Administrative Court about his conditions in detention in Å iauliai Remand Prison. He complained of overcrowding; of there being no partition wall between toilets and cells; of insufficient ventilation; of insufficient time in the open air; of the presence of cockroaches; of inmates smoking in the cells; of no long-term or short-term visits; of the low energy value of the food provided; and of the prohibition on having his own blanket and a music player.

On 27 June 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that the presence of toilets in the applicant ’ s cell did not correspond to the requirements of domestic law, that the lighting was insufficient and the temperature was too low, and that food provided had insufficient energy value. The applicant ’ s other complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated. As regards the prohibition to have his own blanket and a music player, the court held that the use of personal blankets and music players was not allowed in accordance with domestic norms. As regards long-term and short-term visits, the court held that remand prisoners did not have a right to long-term visits but he had a right to short-term visits. As a result, the applicant was awarded 1,200 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 348 euros (EUR)) in compensation for inadequate material conditions of detention for 222 days.

The applicant appealed, and on 11 February 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court increased the compensation to EUR 1,500 for 245 days in inadequate conditions of detention.

In October 2014 the applicant lodged a new complaint concerning his material conditions in Å iauliai Remand Prison. He complained of overcrowding, low temperature, dampness, insufficient lighting, prisoners smoking in the cells, and that his partner could not pay him a long-term visit.

On 5 December 2014 the Å iauliai Regional Administrative Court held that for 176 days the applicant had had insufficient cell space. As regards long-term visits, the court stated that the applicant was not entitled to them under domestic law. The court awarded the applicant EUR 869 in compensation for the material conditions of his detention.

The applicant appealed, and on 21 September 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision.

2. Application no. 50966/15 was lodged on 10 October 2015 by SergÄ—j Å arapajev , who was born on 25 May 1975 and is detained in Å iauliai Remand Prison .

The applicant lodged a complaint before the Å iauliai Regional Administrative Court concerning his conditions of detention in Å iauliai Remand Prison. He claimed that from 20 December 2012 until 15 November 2013 his material conditions of detention had been inadequate. The cells had been overcrowded and had lacked ventilation.

On 3 September 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that for 273 days the applicant ’ s conditions of detention had been inadequate and awarded him EUR 1,448 in compensation.

The applicant appealed, and also complained that he was in the same situation as the applicant in the case of Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 13 July 2013). On 14 April 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision, without addressing his complaint about family visits.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international materials

For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards conditions of detention, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others , §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).

For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards visits, see Varnas , cited above , §§ 58-61, and Čiapas v. Lithuania , (no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 27 July 2017).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention of degrading conditions of detention. They also rely on Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicants also complain, under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they suffered discrimination as remand prisoners as they were not entitled to long-term visits.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the conditions of their detention (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 138 and 148-50, 8 December 2015, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 136-41, ECHR 2016)?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-98, 10 January 2012, and Mironovas and Others , cited above, §§ 102-04)?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that they were not entitled to conjugal visits during their detention on remand? If so, did that interference comply with the requirements of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

4. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their status as prisoners on remand pending trial, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, §§ 108-23, 9 July 2013)?