Communicated on 11 July 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 57738/16 Igor KARP against Estonia and 1 other application (see list appended)

The details of the applicants are set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the cases

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

1. Karp v. Estonia, no. 57738/16

The applicant alleges that he was held in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from April 2008 to September 2008, from September 2009 to October 2009, from January 2010 to February 2010, from 23 February 2012 to 9 November 2012, and from 27 December 2012 to 31 October 2013). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confinement he had at his disposal less than 3 sq. m of personal space. The cell had poor lighting and lacked ventilation and the walls were covered with thick mould as the prisoners had to wash and dry their clothes there.

On 7 April 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention.

Tallinn Prison did not respond to his complaint.

On 17 June 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation in the amount of 500 euros (EUR) per month or EUR 17 per day for twenty-six months for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention.

On 15 December 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the periods from April 2008 to September 2008, from September 2009 to October 2009, and from January 2010 to February 2010 on the grounds that the applicant had not instituted the mandatory pre-action proceedings required under section 47 (1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure and the complaint had not been lodged in due time under section 17 (3) of the State Liability Act. With regard to the periods from 23 February 2012 to 9 November 2012 and from 27 December 2012 to 31 October 2013, the first-instance court dismissed the complaint as unfounded.

The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging an appeal before the Tartu Court of Appeal.

In its judgment of 1 December 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on the grounds that he had no right to claim compensation because he had failed to make use of the preventive remedies provided for under section 7 (1) of the State Liability Act, since he had not submitted a request for transfer to another prison or cell. Although the in ‑ cell sanitary facility had not been deducted from the measurements of the cell, previous domestic case-law proved that prisoners had not generally had less than 3 or 2.5 square metres of personal space at their disposal in Tallinn Prison.

The second-instance court noted that in his appeal the applicant did not complain either about the court ’ s refusal to entertain his complaints regarding the periods from April 2008 to September 2008, from September 2009 to October 2009, and from January 2010 to February 2010, or about the other conditions of detention allegedly constituting violations, with the exception of overcrowding.

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused him leave to appeal on 28 March 2016.

2. Savva v. Estonia, no. 60178/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison ( from 25 August 2004 to 23 September 2004, from 28 February 2007 to 4 October 2007, from 28 October 2008 to 2 June 2009, and from 20 May 2010 to 14 July 2011). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and he had less than 3 sq. m of personal space at his disposal. Moreover, throughout his confinement, except from 28 October 2008 to 2 June 2009, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of outdoor exercise per day. The outdoor exercise yard measured 15 sq. m and was used by other cellmates at the same time. He had no access to a gym. His eyes hurt and his vision was impaired because of the poor lighting in the cell. The cell lacked fresh air and ventilation. The walls were covered with mould because the prisoners had to wash and dry their clothes there. The applicant contracted a skin infection due to the excessive moisture in the cells. The shower could be used only once a week. Music was played all day at a loud volume. Meetings and phone calls with his family were limited. From 28 October 2008 to 2 June 2009, when the applicant was moved into the open section of a prison, the conditions of detention were no better. The cells were small, damp and cold. As there was no toilet in the cell, at night the applicant had to wait, sometimes for an hour, until the guard let him use the communal toilet.

On 30 January 2014 and 13 March 2014 the applicant lodged complaints with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the inadequate conditions of detention.

Tallinn Prison did not respond to his complaints.

On 21 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 20,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention.

On 21 May 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 750 with regard to the period from 20 May 2010 to 14 July 2011 and terminated the proceedings with regard to the periods from 28 February 2007 to 4 October 2007 and from 28 October 2008 to 2 June 2009 on the grounds that the complaint had not been lodged in due time under section 17 (3) of the State Liability Act. The first-instance court refused to entertain his complaints seeking compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage resulting from the restriction of communication with his family, infrequent access to a shower, and the playing of loud music in the prison on the grounds that the applicant had never raised these issues with the prison authorities.

The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging appeals with the Tartu Court of Appeal.

In its judgment of 23 February 2016 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, partially upheld the appeal lodged by Tallinn Prison, and quashed the first-instance judgment with regard to the period from 20 May 2010 to 29 January 2011 and with regard to the amount of money the applicant had been awarded. The Court of Appeal refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the impugned period on the grounds that the applicant had not instituted mandatory pre-action proceedings as required under section 47 (1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure and the complaint had not been lodged in due time under section 17 (3) of the State Liability Act. With regard to the period from 30 January to 14 July 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 50 on the grounds that for nineteen days the personal space available to the applicant had fallen below 3 sq. m of floor surface in the cell and he had been locked in the cell for twenty-three hours per day.

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused him leave to appeal on 14 April 2016.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention.

In the case of Savva v. Estonia (no. 60178/16), the applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the limited contact with his family.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Have the applicants properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies concerning their conditions of detention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the conditions of the applicants ’ detention, in particular the size of their cells and the number of inmates placed in the same cell at the material time, or any other conditions relating to sanitary and hygiene conditions, access to out-of-cell walks, medical care and access to recreational activities, amount specifically or cumulatively to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. In the case of Savva v. Estonia (no. 60178/16), has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of Convention?

The Government are requested to provide detailed information about the conditions in which the applicants have been detained and all the relevant documents in that respect.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name

date of birth

place of residence

57738/16

28/09/2016

Igor KARP

23/12/1970

Johvi

60178/16

12/10/2016

Aleksei SAVVA

21/07/1973

Tallinn