PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE JOÄŒIENÄ–

I agree with the majority ’ s conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this case concerning the degrading conditions of the applicant ’ s detention at the Anykščiai Police Remand Facility.

However, I would like to express my disagreement as regards the just satisfaction claim under Article 41, where the Chamber decided to award the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

In my opinion, the sum awarded is excessive, insufficiently reasoned and unacceptable in the overall circumstances relevant to the case. The applicant was detained in the above-mentioned Police Remand Facility for only seven days. Moreover, the Lithuanian administrative courts found (see paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment) that certain domestic regulations on hygiene standards had been breached (as regards the natural light in cells and the possibility to use the toilet in conditions that were not degrading), but nevertheless came to the conclusion that the minimum level of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention had not been reached in this case as there was no indication that the conditions of detention had affected the applicant ’ s physical health.

Therefore, even while disagreeing with the national courts ’ conclusion that the minimum level of severity required in order to find a substantive violation of Article 3 was not reached in this case, I think that the Chamber should have taken into account the analysis of the national courts regarding the fact that no negative impact of the detention conditions on the applicant ’ s physical health had been established (see paragraph 15 of the judgment). Furthermore, the national courts placed great emphasis on the fact that the applicant was a healthy man of 44, detained for a very short period of seven days. They also had regard to the fact that there had been no intention on the part of the authorities to humiliate or debase the applicant. In my opinion such facts, established by the national courts, are of crucial importance and must be taken into account also in the light of the case-law of the Court when awarding just satisfaction to applicants in Article 3 cases (see Price v. the United Kingdom , no. 33394/96, § 34, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII ).

I could accept that the Chamber, bearing in mind its findings with regard to the degrading treatment suffered by the applicant (see paragraph 43 of the judgment), might have considered that the applicant had suffered some non ‑ pecuniary damage even as a result of his short detention which could not be compensated solely by the finding of a violation ( see Peers v. Greece , no. 28524/95, § 88, ECHR 2001 ‑ III ; Savenkovas v. Lithuania , no. 871/02, § 117, 18 November 2008; and Longin v. Croatia , no. 49268/10, § 76, 6 November 2012). However, in my opinion, in determining the amount of the award, the above-mentioned criteria should have been taken into account and therefore the award for non-pecuniary damage should have been significantly reduced in this case.

Further, I note that the just satisfaction claim of the applicant (even for non-pecuniary damage under Article 41) is not supported by any medical evidence which might provide proof of the adverse consequences caused to the applicant, such as distress and/or frustration. The claim is based on the applicant ’ s personal assessment, which cannot be considered reasonable in the particular circumstances of this case.

I conclude that the Chamber should have been more cautious when deciding on the non-pecuniary award under Article 41, in order to justify the satisfaction claims as “just” in the circumstances of the case at issue while also taking into account the economic situation or standard of living in the country (see, mutatis mutandis , Giedrikas v. Lithuania ( dec .), no. 51392/07, 14 December 2010). In Lithuania, the average minimum monthly salary is 850 Lithuanian litai [1] , meaning that the applicant, for seven days ’ detention without any negative consequences, will receive compensation equal to approximately twelve months ’ average salary in that country.

[1] Key social inde xes. < http://www.so d ra.lt/index.php?cid=284 1 >; Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 3.45 LTL.