Communicated on 13 September 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 14411/16 Igor OSKIRKO against Lithuania lodged on 9 March 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Oskirko , is a Lith uanian national who was born in 1973 and is detained in Kybartai Correctional Facility.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. He asked the court to oblige Lukiškės Remand Prison to immediately terminate his inhuman and degrading treatment, transfer him to a cell where he would have no less than 4 square metres of personal space (not including space for the toilet and the furniture), and award him 86,886 euros (EUR) in compensation. He complained regarding overcrowding, low temperatures, damp, the fact that he was held with convicted inmates who were serving sentences for grave crimes, the insufficient nutritional value of the food, the fact that he could only shower once a week for fifteen minutes, and the lack of time spent in the open air. He also complained about the lack of long-term visits in Lukiškės Remand Prison and claimed that consequently he had separated from his partner. He further complained regarding his conditions of detention in Klaipėda police station between 23 December 2011 and 5 March 2013. He complained regarding overcrowding, the lack of ventilation, damp, low temperatures, the lack of time spent in the open air, the fact that the shower had only been available once a week for fifteen minutes, the insufficient nutritional value of the food, the fact that there had been no long-term or short-term visits, and the fact that there were no separate cells for non-smokers and inmates who had tuberculosis or HIV. He also complained regarding his conditions of detention in Šiauliai Remand Prison betw een 4 January 2012 and 13 March 2013. He complained regarding overcrowding, low temperatures during the winter and high temperatures during the summer, insufficient ventilation, the fact that he could only shower once a week, the lack of proper partitions between toilets and cells, and the fact that there had been no long-term visits. He also complained regarding his conditions of detention in Alytus Correctional Facility between 2 January 2013 and 26 February 2013. He complained regarding overcrowding and the insufficient nutritional value of the food. He also complained regarding the conditions of his transportation, namely overcrowded vans, insufficient ventilation, and low temperatures.

On 26 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant ’ s claim in part. The court held that he had had insufficient personal space for one evening only during his time in Lukiškės Remand Prison. The other complaints by the applicant were dismissed as unsubstantiated. As regards long-term visits, the court held that the applicant could not receive them, as he was a remand prisoner and not a convicted inmate. As regards Šiauliai Remand Prison, the court held that the applicant had had insufficient personal space in the cells for two-hundred and eighty-three days, and that the lack of proper partition walls between toilets and cells was enough to find that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. As regards long-term visits, the court held that the applicant had not been entitled to them, in accordance with domestic law. As for Alytus Correctional Facility, the applicant ’ s complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated. With regard to Klaipėda police station, the court found that the applicant had had insufficient personal space for fifty-seven days and that the partition wall between the toilet and the cell was too low. In relation to visits, the court held that people did not have a right to receive any visits from their relatives when they were transferred to police stations temporarily. Lastly, as regards the conditions of transportation, the court held that the applicant ’ s complaints were unsubstantiated. As a result, the court awarded him compensation of EUR 1,200 from Šiauliai Remand Prison and EUR 200 from Klaipėda police station.

The applicant appealed and on 10 November 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material

For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards conditions of detention, see M ironovas 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 v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 58-61, 13 July 2013) and Čiapas v. Lithuania , (no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 27 July 2017).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the degrading conditions of his detention.

He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about his inability to receive long-term visits, and under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that he suffered discrimination as a remand prisoner, as he was not entitled to long-term visits.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant still be considered a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the decisions by the domestic courts finding violations of his rights (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 40828/12 and 6 others , §§ 84-85 and 96, 8 December 2015) and awarding him compensation ?

2. In the affirmative, has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to his conditions of detention in Šiauliai Remand Prison and Klaipėda police station (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016)?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life in refusing to allow him long-term visits, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as a remand prisoner as opposed to a convicted inmate, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, §§ 115-123, 9 July 2013) ?