Communicated on 18 May 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no . 74111/13 Remigijus LANIAUSKAS against Lithuania and 4 other applications

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Lithuanian nationals.

A. The circumstances of the cases

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

1. Application no. 74111/13 was lodged on 18 November 2013 by Remigijus La niauskas who was born on 4 July 1972 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. He is represented by Ms G. Cimbolienė , a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

The applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 9 March 2008. On 27 July 2012 he submitted a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed 75,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 21,700 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 8 November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. It firstly held that the time-limit to claim damages was three years after the damage arose, and thus dismissed the part of the applicant ’ s claim conce rning the period before 27 July 2009 as time ‑ barred. The court then examined various documents provided by the prison authorities and found that, during the remaining period, for about one year and seven months the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells, in breach of the domestic standard of 3.6 m 2 of personal space. The court also concluded that the temperature and the amount of natural light in the cells had not complied with domestic hygiene norms. The applicant was awarded LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 434) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 20 May 2013 the Supreme Admini strative Court upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s judgment in its entirety.

2. Application no. 78123/13 was lodged on 24 November 2013 by Henrikas Dakta ras who was born on 12 December 1957 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. He is represented by Mr V. Sirvydis , a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

The applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 10 October 2009. On 9 January 2012 he lodged a complaint to a court concerning his detention. The applicant submitted that Lukiškės Remand Prison, located in Vilnius, was 430 kilometres away from the city of Klaipėda in which the criminal proceedings against him were ongoing, so he had to be regularly transported to Klaipėda with all his belongings, which caused him serious inconvenience. The applicant also submitted that the conditions of detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison were inadequate. He asked to be transferred to Šiauliai Remand Prison.

On 20 September 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. It held that the applicant had been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison in accordance with relevant domestic law and did not examine the part of the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the conditions of detention. However, on 19 February 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court remitted the case for re-examination.

The applicant then asked the courts to order interim measures and transfer him to Šiauliai Remand Prison, arguing that the poor conditions of detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison were causing him serious physical and psychological harm, but his request was dismissed.

On 14 June 2013 the applicant was convicted by a first-instance court and began serving his sentence in LukiÅ¡kÄ—s Remand Prison. He appealed against the conviction and the appellate proceedings were being conducted in Vilnius. Therefore, on 21 August 2013 the applicant revised hisclaim – he no longer asked to be transferred to Å iauliai Remand Prison but claimed LTL 1,000,000 (approximately EUR 290,000) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the previous transportation to KlaipÄ—da and the poor conditions of detention in LukiÅ¡kÄ—s Remand Prison.

On 30 December 2013 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. It dismissed the part of the claim concerning the period before 21 August 2010 as time-barred. On the basis of documents provided by the prison authorities, the court found that, during the remaining period, for fifty-one days the applicant had had less than 3 m 2 of personal space. The court also concluded that the cells had been dilapidated and the temperature, the amount of natural light and the level of humidity in the cells had not complied with domestic hygiene norms. The applicant was awarded LTL 3,000 (approximately EUR 870) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, on 30 October 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court remitted the case for re-examination on the grounds that the first-instance court had not addressed the part of the applicant ’ s claim concerning transportation.

On 19 May 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. It dismissed the part of the claim concerning the period before 21 August 2010 as time-barred. It also dismissed the part of the claim concerning transportation, finding that the applicant had been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison in accordance with relevant domestic law. The court then found that for sixty-six days the applicant had had less than 3 m 2 of personal space and that for 656 days, although he had had around 3.45 m 2 of personal space, the fact that part of the cells had been occupied by furniture had to be taken into account. The court also reiterated its earlier conclusion regarding the temperature, the amount of natural light and the level of humidity in the cells. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 7 September 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s judgment in its entirety.

3. Application no. 53460/15 was lodged on 21 October 2015 by Mindaugas Januška who was born on 11 July 1982 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility.

The applicant has been detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility since 8 June 2012. On 4 October 2013 he submitted a civil claim against the State, alleging that that he was being detained in overcrowded cells. He claimed LTL 11,000 (approximately EUR 3,200) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.

On 12 March 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. The court found that for seventy-nine days the applicant had had less than 3 m 2 of personal space. However, it noted that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and there were no grounds to find that the conditions of detention had been otherwise inadequate. Therefore, the applicant ’ s claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

On 15 May 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court partly upheld an appeal lodged by the applicant. It found that for 274 days the applicant had had between 2.33 and 3.04 m 2 of personal space. The court considered that, despite the fact that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and the conditions of detention had been otherwise adequate, there were grounds to award him damages. The applicant was awarded EUR 130 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

4. Application no. 25988/16 was lodged on 5 May 2016 by Pavelas Višni akovas who was born on 16 March 1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison.

The applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 16 January 2002. On 16 May 2014 he submitted a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed LTL 450,000 (approximately EUR 130,300) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 19 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. It dismissed the part of the claim concerning the period before 16 May 2011 as time-barred. On the basis of documents provided by the prison authorities, the court found that, during the remaining period, for thirteen days and one afternoon the applicant had had 3.24 m 2 of personal space (in breach of the domestic standard of 3.6 m 2 ) and for one afternoon he had had 2.65 m 2 of personal space. The court also concluded that the cells had been dilapidated, the toilets inside the cells had not been fully partitioned, the applicant had been locked in his cell for twenty-three hours a day, and there had not been any activities for prisoners outside of their cells, except for one hour a day in a dilapidated yard. The applicant was awarded EUR 80 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 10 November 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment in its entirety.

5. Application no. 42468/16 was lodged on 11 July 2016 by Giedrius Bu tkus who was born on 24 January 1981 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility. He is represented by Mr A. Tiščenko , a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

The applicant has been detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility since 28 September 2012. On an unspecified date he submitted a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed LTL 32,700 (approximately EUR 9,500) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 25 March 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. The court found that for about one year and seven months the applicant had had 2.81 m 2 of personal space. However, it considered that that breach had been minor and also noted that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and there were no grounds to find that the conditions of detention had been otherwise inadequate. Therefore, the applicant ’ s claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

On 15 February 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s judgment in its entirety.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Conditions of detention

For relevant domestic law and practice concerning conditions of detention, see §§ 50-60 of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others , 8 December 2015).

2. Conjugal visits

At the material time, Article 22 of the Law on Pre-Trial Detention provided that persons detained on remand had the right to visits of up to two hours by family members or other persons, upon the permission of an investigative officer or a court.

For relevant domestic law concerning the right to conjugal visits for convicted prisoners, see §§ 59-61 of Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they are detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In cases no. 78123/13 and 42468/16 the applicants also invoke Article 13 of the Convention.

In case no. 78123/13 the applicant also complains that he was not entitled to conjugal visits while he was det ained on remand from 10 October 2009 to 14 June 2013. He invokes Article 8 of the Convention alone and taken together with Article 14.

COMMON QUESTIONS

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 142-44, 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 , mentioned above, §§ 102-04)?

SEPARATE QUESTION s FOR CASE No. 78123/13

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

4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as prisoner 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)?