Communicated on 16 May 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 23226/16 Vladimir NIKITIN against Estonia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

A list of the applicants is 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. Nikitin v. Estonia, no. 23226/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 27 November 2007 to 23 October 2013). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confine ment he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space.

On 27 April 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

Tallinn Prison did not respond to his complaint.

On 6 July 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 40,000 euros (EUR) for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 6 January 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 250 and ordered Tallinn Prison to pay costs of the proceedings to the applicant in the amount of EUR 0.15. The first-instance court held, inter alia , that the applicant ’ s failure to use preventive remedies under section 7 (1) of the State Liability Act, did not hinder granting the claim because the overcrowding in Tallinn Prison was a well-known problem.

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

By a judgment of 1 October 2015 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, upheld the appeal of Tallinn Prison and quashed the first-instance judgment in part. The court of appeal refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the pe riod from 27 November 2007 to 9 February 2009 as well as 23 October 2013 on the grounds that the applicant had not followed the 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 per iod from 10 February 2009 to 22 October 2013, the court of appeal dismissed the complaint as unfounded.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 28 March 2016.

2. Villems v. Estonia, no. 43059/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 7 July 2011 to 17 April 2013). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one daily hour of outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard did not exceed the measurements of the cell and was used together with other cellmates. As the applicant was not separated from smokers, he could not go to the outdoor exercise yard for six months. The shower could be used only once a week for twenty minutes, while the detainees also had to wash their clothes because there was no hot water in the cells. There was no privacy during the shower.

On 9 May 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 2 July 2013 Tallinn Prison dismissed his complaint as unfounded.

On 25 July 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking fair compensation for non-pecuniary damage at the discretion of the court for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 12 February 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 1,70 0 (administrative case no. 3 ‑ 13 ‑ 1589).

On 14 January 2014 the applicant lodged a further complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage because he had not been separated from smokers during his out-of-cell walks from 22 March to 17 October 2012.

On 13 March 2014 Tallinn Prison dismissed his complaint.

On 25 March 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 2,000 for not being provided with walks without smokers. By a judgment of 15 September 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint (administrative case no. 3-14-344).

The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment of 12 February 2014 (administrative case no. 3-13-1589) and the applicant also challenged the first-instance judgment of 15 September 2014 (administrative case no. 3-14-344) by lodging appeals before the Tartu Court of Appeal. On 1 October 2015 the court of appeal joined both cases.

By its judgment of 3 November 2015 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgments of 12 February 2014 and of 15 September 2014 and upheld the applicant ’ s complaint, partially awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage for not being provided walks without smokers, in the amount of EUR 100. The second-instance court dismissed the remainder of applicant ’ s complaints, inter alia , on the grounds that the applicant had no right to claim compensation for damage because he had failed to use the preventive remedies under section 7 (1) of the State Liability Act, as he had not submitted a request for transfer into another prison or cell.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 14 January 2016.

3. Maksimov v. Estonia, no . 56920/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 22 March 2013 to 4 February 2014). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one daily hour of outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard measured 2.7 by 4.7 metres and was used together with other detainees. As the cell was overcrowded, the applicant had to stay in a forced position. He had no access to a gym. The shower could be used only once a week for 20 minutes together with other detainees.

On 4 February 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 15 April 2014 Tallinn Prison dismissed his complaint as unfounded.

On 5 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 1,000 for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 12 November 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 148.78 and ordered Tallinn Prison to pay costs of the proceedings to the applicant in the amount of EUR 4.46. The first-instance court held, inter alia , that the applicant ’ s failure to use preventive remedies under section 7 (1) of the State Liability Act, did not hinder granting the claim because the overcrowding in Tallinn Prison was a well-known problem. Moreover, the applicant ’ s actions or omissions could not have had any influence on his allocation to a cell with sufficient personal space.

The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging appeals before the Tartu Cour t of Appeal. By a judgment of 8 December 2015 the court of appeal dismissed the appeals.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 7 April 2016.

4. Jeret v. Estonia, no . 59152/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 25 February 2011 to 21 November 2013). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space. He had to tolerate high temperatures and rodents in the cell. Moreover, he was not provided with a lactose-free diet from 25 February 2011 to 21 November 2013, although it had been prescribed by a doctor. He had back pain because he did not have sufficient opportunity to do physical exercise. His eyes hurt because of the poor lighting in the cell. He was also not given adequate medical treatment for his foot and nail infection.

On 21 January 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

Tallinn Prison did not decide on his complaint in due time.

On 27 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tallinn Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 87,600 euros for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 19 March 2015 the Tallinn Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 1,100.

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

By its judgment of 17 February 2016 the court of appeal dismissed the appeals, changed the reasoning of the first-instance judgment and ordered Tallinn Prison to pay costs of the proceedings in the amount of EUR 750. The second-instance court granted the claim on the grounds that the applicant had not been provided with lactose-free diet for two years, although it had been prescribed by a doctor. The court held, inter alia , that it was a well-known fact that in Tallinn Prison the sanitary conditions and the conditions of the cells were poor.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which was refused leave to appeal on 25 April 2016.

5. Kaziks v. Estonia, no . 56920/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 28 December 2009 to 9 November 2011 and from 7 December to 21 December 2011). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one daily hour of outdoor exercise. The cell had poor lighting and lacked ventilation, which could be felt especially in summer when there was not enough fresh air and it was too hot. He had to wash the dishes with cold water and without dishwashing liquid.

On 21 January 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

Tallinn Prison did not decide on his complaint in due time.

On 29 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Cou rt seeking compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 11,954 for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 29 September 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 315.

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

By its judgment of 10 March 2016 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, satisfied the appeal of Tallinn Prison and quashed the first-instance judgment. The court of appeal refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the period from 28 December 2009 to 20 January 2011 on the grounds that the applicant has not followed the 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 periods from 21 January to 9 November 2011 and from 7 December to 21 December 2011, the court of appeal dismissed the complaint as unfounded.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 28 April 2016. The decision was delivered to the applicant on 2 May 2016.

6. Tarasovski v. Estonia, no . 75362/16

The applicant alleges that he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison (from 24 October 2008 to 26 July 2011 and from 23 April to 7 May 2013). The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 square metres of personal space. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one daily hour of outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard was 15 square metres and was used together with other cellmates. He had no access to a gym.

On 9 June 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 8 August 2013 Tallinn Prison refused to examine his complaint with regard to the time period from 24 October 2008 to 10 June 2010 and dismissed the rest of his complaint as unfounded.

On 8 September 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 10,000 for inadequate conditions of detentions.

On 11 March 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim in the amount of EUR 7,061 and ordered Tallinn Prison to pay costs of the proceedings in the amount of EUR 211.83. The first ‑ instance court refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the claim concerning the physical suffering and the lack of privacy and sporting facilities.

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

By its judgment of 16 December 2015 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, partially upheld the appeal of Tallinn Prison and quashed the first-instance judgment. The court of appeal refused to entertain the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to the period from 24 October 2008 to 10 June 2010 on the grounds that the applicant had not followed the 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. The court of appeal granted the remainder of his complaint in the amount of EUR 200, taking into account the different periods when the applicant was a detainee on remand and a prisoner. The court held, inter alia , that the applicant ’ s failure to use preventive remedies under section 7 (1) of the State Liability Act did not hinder granting the claim because the applicant ’ s complaint could not have avoided damage.

The applicant then lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 30 May 2016.

COMPLAINTS

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

The applicants further complain that they did not have effective domestic remedies for their conditions of detention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

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

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies (preventive and compensatory remedies) for their Convention complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government is requested to provide detailed information about the conditions in which the applicants have been detained, as well as about their exhaustion of domestic remedies, and all the relevant documents in that respect.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Represented by

23226/16

19/04/2016

Vladimir NIKITIN

14/02/1968

43059/16

08/07/2016

Martin VILLEMS

28/02/1971

Denis PISKUNOV

56920/16

25/09/2016

Juri MAKSIMOV

02/11/1961

59152/16

04/10/2016

Peeter JERET

25/12/1959

63211/16

30/10/2016

Guntars KAZIKS

07/04/1967

75362/16

30/11/2016

Vitali TARASOVSKI

31/12/1978