CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF5E8D99 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB2EDE122 { width:158.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA23A4EB0 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA   (Applications nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13)           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   8 December 2015       FINAL   02/05/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Vincent A. de Gaetano,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in seven applications (nos.   29292/12, 40828/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13) against Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Lithuanian nationals Bogdan Petrulevič, Ričardas Mironovas, Roman   Ivanenkov, Romualdas Klintovič, Romualdas Gaska, Vidas Traknys and Dainius Zeleniakas (“the applicants”), on 4 May, 18 June and 16   October 2012, and 14 June, 15 October and 4   November 2013 (the last two applicants), respectively. 2.     The applicant B.   Petrulevič was represented by Mr D.   Fomkin, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The applicant R.   Mironovas, who was granted legal aid, was represented by Mr S.   Tomas. The applicant R.   Ivanenkov was represented by Mr R.   Lilas, a lawyer practising in Kaunas. The applicants R.   Klintovič, R.   Gaška, V.   Traknys and D.   Zeleniakas, who were also granted legal aid, were represented by Mr K.   Ašmys, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by     their Agent Ms Elvyra Baltutytė, and later by their Agent Ms   Karolina   Bubnytė. 3.     The applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in different Lithuanian prisons. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     On 18 January 2013 and 7   January 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Mr Bogdan Petrulevič 5 .     Mr Petrulevič was born in 1986. When he lodged the application with the Court in 2012, he was serving a prison sentence at the Pravieniškės Correctional Home. 6.     From 8 April 2005 to 26 October 2006 the applicant was detained at the Lukiškės Remand Prison. It transpires from the documents before the Court that he was held in different remand prison cells where he had between 1.55 and 3.95 square metres of living space. 7.     After his conviction and transfer to the Pravieniškės Correctional Home to serve his sentence, on 27 October 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages. He argued that the conditions in which he had been held at the Lukiškės Remand Prison had been degrading: the cells were overcrowded, full of rats and worms, appropriate toilet facilities were lacking, the cells were hot in summer and cold in winter, the cell walls were damp, and the roof of the remand prison was covered with asbestos, which put the applicant’s health in danger. 8 .     The Lukiškės Remand Prison administration responded that they attempted to maintain the statutory norm of 5 square metres per remand prisoner held in a cell (see paragraph 54 below), but that had not always been possible. The administration acknowledged that the facility was “constantly overcrowded ( nuolat perpildytas )”, because the institution could not refuse to admit persons brought there. The buildings of the remand prison were very old, they were repaired periodically and it was not possible to repair them entirely. 9 .   The case was first examined by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, which rejected the applicant’s claim, inter alia , for having missed the statutory time-limit. The Supreme Administrative Court then remitted the case for fresh examination. On 9 June 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court noted that the applicant had missed, by one day, the statutory three-year time-limit to lodge a claim for damages. The court nevertheless restored the time-limit of its own motion, having observed that the applicant had lodged his claim belatedly partly because he had not obtained in time information necessary for his civil claim. 10.     The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court established that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for just under a year and a half, given that for that duration he had been held in cells where he had less than 5 square metres of personal space. On the basis of Article 21 § 2 of the Constitution, Articles 6.250 and 6.271 of the Civil Code and the Strasbourg Court’s judgment in Savenkovas v. Lithuania (no. 871/02, 18   November   2008), the first-instance court held that because of the overcrowding the applicant’s dignity had suffered. Nonetheless, the court dismissed the applicant’s remaining complaints about the detention conditions in the Lukiškės Remand Prison as not actually proven. It also noted that he had not complained to any authority of the unsanitary conditions in Lukiškės while he had been held there. The court also took into account that after having been transferred to the Pravieniškės Correctional Home, the applicant had undergone a medical examination. The doctors had established that he was healthy, which provided evidence that the conditions of his detention in Lukiškės had had no impact on his health. 11.     Having taken into account the economic conditions in Lithuania, namely, a minimal monthly salary of 800 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 230 euros (EUR)) and an average monthly salary of LTL   2,151 (EUR   620), as well as the Lithuanian administrative courts’ practice in similar cases, the court awarded the applicant LTL 3,000 (EUR   870) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding. 12 .     On 6   February 2012, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court underlined that notwithstanding the general rule that a person claiming damage bore the burden of proving it, the lower court had actively used available means for obtaining evidence: on several occasions it had requested the prison in question to provide additional information as to the applicant’s detention conditions and his state of health. That information had been provided to the court. 13 .     The Supreme Administrative Court also established that for 564 days the applicant had been kept at the Lukiškės Remand Prison in inadequate conditions on account of overcrowding, understood by the domestic law requirement to guarantee prisoners 5 square metres of personal space in a remand prison cell. It can be deduced from the Supreme Administrative Court’s analysis of the details of the applicant’s placement in Lukiškės that for 361 days he was held in cells where he had less than 3 square metres of personal space. The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that for most of his detention, namely for 309 days, the applicant had been held in cells where his personal space had been even less than 2.5 square metres. The court noted that, despite the overcrowding, for 366 days out of 564 the applicant had been held in two cells where heating, ventilation, sanitary and electric systems had been renovated in 2004, thus providing him with somewhat better material conditions ( geresnėmis buitinėmis sąlygomis, nors ir neužtikrinant minimalios gyvenamojo ploto normos ). Nevertheless, he had been held in overcrowded cells for twenty-three hours a day, and the Lukiškės Remand Prison had provided no evidence that the lack of living space had been remedied in any other way. For the court, such conditions went beyond the inevitable element of discomfort connected with detention (it referred to Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI), degraded the applicant and were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 14 .     The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the Strasbourg Court would sometimes hold that finding a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction. In the instant case, however, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the degree of the applicant’s suffering called for pecuniary compensation. Moreover, the sum of LTL 3,000 was not sufficient. Yet, the Supreme Administrative Court took into account that the applicant had not lodged a claim for damages until three years after his detention in such conditions had ended, by which time the court considered that the impact on a person’s emotional and physical suffering had decreased ( laiko veiksnys asmens patirtas dvasines ir fizines kančias menkina, jos blėsta ). The fact that the applicant had not instituted court proceedings for damages until three years after his release from the Lukiškės Remand Prison led the court to the conclusion that his mental suffering ( dvasinė skriauda ) was not so significant. Furthermore, when detained, the applicant was nineteen to twenty years old. During the hearing before the first-instance court he had acknowledged that he was in a good state of health. Accordingly, the conditions of his detention in Lukiškės had had no negative effect on his health. On the evidence, no other complaints, except for those concerning overcrowding, were found to be substantiated in his case. Lastly, the court held that the applicant had been partly favoured by the first-instance court’s initiative to restore the time-limit for lodging a claim for damages. It was therefore reasonable and just to award LTL 8,000 (approximately EUR   2,300) to compensate him for any non-pecuniary damage. B.     Mr Ričardas Mironovas 15 .     Mr Mironovas was born in 1978. When he lodged his application with the Court in 2012, he was serving a prison sentence at the Pravieniškės Correctional Home. 16 .     From 2009 to 2011 the applicant was held at the Prison Department Hospital ( Laisvės atėmimo vietų ligoninė ) in Vilnius in the following conditions: -   twenty-eight days in a room measuring 14.9 square metres, containing four beds (that is, 3.75 square metres per bed), and in a room measuring 12.11 square metres, containing three beds (that is, 4.03 square metres per bed); -   fourteen days in a room measuring 14.9 square metres, containing four   beds (that is, 3.73 square metres per bed); -   one month and three days in a room measuring 21.25 square metres, containing five beds (that is, 4.25 square metres per bed); -   six days in a room measuring 19.80 square metres, containing seven   beds (that is, 2.83 square metres per bed); -   five days in a room measuring 12.14 square metres, containing three   beds (that is, 4.04 square metres per bed); -   five days in a room measuring 22.84 square metres, containing six beds (that is, 3.81 square metres per bed). 17.     The applicant later instituted court proceedings for damages, claiming that he had been held in inhuman and degrading conditions at the Prison Department Hospital, because the rooms had been overcrowded, the hospital did not have a hygiene certificate, and the rooms had been dilapidated. 18 .     On 14 November 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly accepted the complaint. It established that as of 2007, the health-care authorities had six times established breaches of hygiene requirements at the Prison Department Hospital. In particular, the hospital showers, toilets and other premises were not properly cleaned and disinfected, patients who were suffering from an open form of tuberculosis and psychiatric patients took showers together with other patients (without being isolated, against the domestic law requirements), and many parts of the hospital needed renovation. The court also established that the Prison Department Hospital was operating without a hygiene certificate, which was against the domestic law. 19 .     As to overcrowding, the hospital provided information about the applicant’s stay therein, but could not specify how many persons had been held with him in the room. The first-instance court considered the lack of appropriate documentation as a flaw on the part of the hospital. The court then itself counted how many square metres the applicant could have had during each period of his stay at that hospital, dividing the size of each room by the number of beds therein. The court thus established that the applicant had been held in overcrowded rooms, and that the domestic norm had been “seriously breached” ( nustatyta minimali norma pažeista ženkliai ), given that the norm was that hospitals had to provide no less than seven square metres per bed (see paragraph 54 below). 20 .     The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court concluded that the applicant’s right to be treated in appropriate conditions had been breached. It underlined that the flaws could not be justified by a lack of financing for the hospital. The court considered that compensation of LTL   2,000 (EUR   580) would be sufficient for the applicant, taking into account the principles of reasonableness and justice, and the economic situation in Lithuania. 21.     On 3 May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the above decision. The higher court recognised that the applicant had been held in overcrowded rooms and in improper sanitary conditions. However, patients at the Prison Department Hospital had the opportunity of being in the open air from 6   a.m. to 10   p.m., which eased their situation as regards the overcrowding and also justified a lower award for non-pecuniary damage. Moreover, the conditions of the applicant’s stay in the hospital, whilst unsatisfactory from a hygiene point of view, had not put his health or life at risk. Those conditions had had no lasting effect on the applicant. C.     Mr Roman Ivanenkov 22.     Mr Ivanenkov was born in 1980. When he lodged his application with the Court, he was serving a sentence at the Alytus Correctional Home. 23 .     It transpires from the court decisions that from 2008 to 2010 the applicant spent time in dormitory no.   2 at the Alytus Correctional Home in the following conditions: -   nearly nineteen months in a dormitory-type room measuring 30.28   square metres, which contained sixteen beds (that is, 1.9 square metres of living space per inmate); and -   over four months in a dormitory-type room measuring 24.80 square metres, containing fifteen beds (that is, 1.65 square metres of living space per inmate). 24.     The applicant sued the Alytus Correctional Home for damages, claiming that the conditions of his detention had been degrading on account of overcrowding and the lack of suitable sanitary facilities. He relied, inter alia , on Council of Europe recommendation No.   R(87) and on Article 3 of the Convention. To support his claim, he submitted a report of 2010 drawn up by the Alytus Public Health Centre ( Alytaus visuomenės sveikatos centras ). 25 .     On 19 December 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court took note of the Alytus Public Health Centre report of 2010 no.   R1-362(2.6), issued in reply to a complaint by the inmates, to the effect that the Alytus correctional facility had a shortage of furniture, dilapidated cells, insufficient lighting, a shortage of cleaning equipment and a shortage of toilets, and that renovation was necessary. The court also took note of another document – a report by the State Health Care Centre ( Valstybinės visuomenės sveikatos centro tarnyba prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos ) – to the effect that complaints made by another inmate in the Alytus facility were warranted and that there had been “gross violations of hygiene norms ( šiurkštūs higienos normų pažeidimai )”. 26.     The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court observed that the parties in essence did not dispute that the applicant had been held in premises where he had had between 1.7 and 1.9 square metres of personal space, and that there had been a shortage of toilet facilities and furniture. Such breaches of the domestic norms on hygiene were far from being short term ( ne trumpalaikiai ). Even so, the applicant’s claim that his physical health had been damaged was dismissed as not proven. Given that he had had to stay within the dormitory only during the night and had been able to move about during the day in the prison yard, take exercise outside on basketball, football and volleyball pitches, and that the premises had ventilation and the toilets were in a separate room, the court decided that it was reasonable and just to award the applicant LTL 2,300 (EUR 660). 27 .     On 26 April 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the assessment of the applicant’s conditions in the Alytus Correctional Home. It noted that the applicant had never complained about the conditions to the Alytus facility administration. Furthermore, there was no proof that the Alytus administration had deliberately sought to degrade the applicant or to treat him inhumanely. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court observed that the Strasbourg Court quite often ( neretai ) held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction. It considered that that would be an appropriate solution in the applicant’s case, even though his right to be held in conditions as set out by the domestic law had been breached. Accordingly, no pecuniary award was made. D.     Mr Romualdas Klintovič 28.     The applicant was born in 1983. When he lodged his application with the Court, he was serving a sentence at the 2 nd Correctional Home-Open Colony of the Pravieniškės Correctional Home. 29 .     It transpires from the documents before the Court that from 2008 to 2012 the applicant spent time in the 2 nd Correctional Home-Open Colony in the following conditions: -   one month in a dormitory-type room, where he had 1.96 square metres of personal space; -   over four months in a dormitory-type room, where he had 2.03 square metres of personal space; -   the remaining time, which appears to be a little bit less than four years, in a dormitory-type room, where he had between 2.27 and 2.57 square metres of personal space. 30. In 2012 the applicant instituted court proceedings for damages, claiming that during his entire stay in Pravieniškės the facility was overcrowded. Moreover, the number of inmates held was constantly rising, even though no new premises were built. The Pravieniškės administration stated that there were plans to modernise that facility by 2017. 31.     By a decision of 9 July 2012 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court partly accepted the applicant’s complaint, having noted that under the domestic law personal space in dormitory-type rooms had to be no less than   3 or 3.1 square metres (see paragraphs 54 and 55 below). The court awarded the applicant LTL 1,000 (EUR 290) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 32 .     On 4 February 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court maintained the award of LTL 1,000 (EUR 290) for non-pecuniary damage, caused by the State’s failure to observe domestic law norms. That being so, the court underlined that overcrowding in the applicant’s case was compensated for by free movement during the day. Moreover, the dormitory’s rooms in Pravieniškės had natural light and ventilation, and the sanitary facilities ( asmens higienos patalpos ) were separated from the sleeping premises. There was no evidence that overcrowding had had an impact on the applicant’s health. The Lithuanian court relied on the Court’s findings in Valašinas v. Lithuania (no. 44558/98, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII), whereby it held that merely a lack of living space provided for the inmate did not necessarily amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Last but not least, the applicant’s personal living space was close to the required domestic norm. It was also noteworthy that the applicant had complained only about lack of space. Having taken into account the cumulative effect of the conditions the applicant was held in, the Supreme Administrative Court thus rejected his assertion that the conditions of his stay in Pravieniškės had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. E.     Mr Romualdas Gaska 33.     Mr Gaska was born in 1958. When introducing the application with the Court in 2013, he was serving his sentence at the Alytus Correctional Home. 34 .     It transpires that after conviction, in May 2010 the applicant was placed in the Vilnius Correctional Home ( Vilniaus pataisos namai ), where he was held until February 2012. Specifically, from 20 May 2010 to 16 September 2011 the applicant had to stay in dormitory-type room no.   4-414 measuring 14.41 square metres with five other inmates (that is, 2.4 square metres of living space per inmate). 35.     In April and June 2012, when he was already in the Alytus Correction Home, the applicant complained to the administration of the Vilnius Correctional Home that he had not had adequate living space in the latter facility and that the lighting in his room had been poor. When the Vilnius Correctional Home denied responsibility, the applicant appealed to the Prison Department, the body that oversees the Lithuanian prisons. The latter replied that, because of the lack of available space, the Vilnius Correctional Home’s administration could not always guarantee the minimum personal space of 3.1 square metres to each inmate required under domestic legislation. However, any lack of personal space during the night was compensated for by the inmates’ ability to move about within the confines of the Vilnius Correctional Home during the day. 36 .     The applicant then instituted court proceedings for damages. The Vilnius Correctional Home asked the court to dismiss the claim, admitting that “because of overcrowding in prisons throughout Lithuania at this time, the Vilnius Correctional Home administration was not always able to provide the inmates with the minimum living space, as provided for by the domestic law ( šiuo metu dėl įkalinimo įstaigų visoje Lietuvoje perpildymo Vilniaus pataisos namų administracija ne visada gali visiems nuteistiesiems suteikti įstatymais nustatytą minimalų gyvenamąjį plotą )”. 37 .     On 25 April 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court noted that there were no particular data with regard to the exact number of inmates held together with the applicant. That being so, having regard to the material provided, namely photographs of six beds in room no.   4-414, the court interpreted all the uncertainties in the applicant’s favour, acknowledging a violation of his rights under the domestic legislation, on account of overcrowding. It established, however, that the applicant had not complained about the conditions of his detention during his stay in the facility at issue. The court held that the applicant’s argument that he had not complained because he had feared retribution from the prison administration had no objective grounds ( niekuo nepagrįstas ). Furthermore, there was no proof that the overcrowding had had an effect on the applicant’s health. Moreover, any lack of space during the night was compensated for by the applicant being able to move about within the facility during the day. The court acknowledged that, according to the domestic case-law and the case-law of the Court, in the event of inadequate detention conditions a person was considered to have sustained non-pecuniary damage. However, pecuniary compensation was not indispensable in order to protect infringed rights. 38.     In parallel court proceedings, the applicant also complained of insufficient lighting in his dormitory. By a final decision of 11   June 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the lighting was very near the requirements as set by the applicable domestic legislation (74 lx, 83 lx and 112 lx, whereas100 lx was required under the legislation). F.     Mr Vidas Traknys 39.     Mr Traknys was born in 1966. When he lodged his application with the Court in 2013, he was serving a prison sentence at the Pravieniškės Correctional Home. 40 .     From 8 December 2009 to 5 October 2011 and from 4 to 20 July 2012 Mr Traknys was held in the Lukiškės Remand Prison. It can be deduced from the Lithuanian court decisions that during the first period of his detention in Lukiškės he spent 608 days in cells where he had between 1.23 and 2.74 square metres of living space. During his second stay in Lukiškės, the applicant spent sixteen days in cells where he had between 2.8 and 3.4 square metres of personal space. 41 .     The applicant later instituted court proceedings for damages, complaining of overcrowding and deplorable conditions on account of the poor sanitary situation. He alleged that the cells were infested with mice and cockroaches, had insufficient lighting and were damp. He relied on a Vilnius Public Health Centre report to the effect that one of the cells had mould on the ceiling. 42 .     By a decision of 23 May 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that there had been overcrowding during the first period of the applicant’s detention in Lukiškės, on account of the prison authorities’ failure to keep up with the domestic law requirement to provide 5 or, later, 3.6 square metres of personal space in the remand prison cells. The court had no doubts that staying in cells that did not meet hygiene standards had caused the applicant mental suffering. Furthermore, even though the applicant had objected to being placed with inmates who smoked, in breach of the domestic legislation, he had been held with smokers for ninety-nine   days (the domestic court referred to Elefteriadis v. Romania , no.   38427/05, 25 January 2011), and with previously convicted inmates for 201 days, even though it was his first time in prison. On account of those multiple breaches of the applicant’s rights, without explicitly acknowledging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and taking into consideration the economic situation in Lithuania, the court considered it just to award compensation of LTL 2,500 (EUR 725). 43 .     As to the second period of the applicant’s detention, by a decision of 16 July 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court also acknowledged overcrowding. Taking into account the short duration of the violation and the economic situation in Lithuania, an award of LTL   350 (EUR 100) was made. G.     Mr Dainius Zeleniakas 44.     Mr Zeleniakas was born in 1973. When he lodged his application with the Court in 2013, he was serving a prison sentence at the Alytus Correctional Home. 45 .     In 2009 and 2010, Mr Zeleniakas was held at the Šiauliai Remand Prison, where he spent 328 days. During that time, he was held in a cell measuring 22.85 square metres, housing four to eight detainees (that is, between 2.86 and 5.71 square metres of personal space); in a cell measuring 20.13 square metres, housing four to nine detainees (that is, between 2.25   and 5.06 square metres of personal space); and in a cell measuring 16.26   square metres, housing five to eight detainees (that is, between 2.03   and 3.25 square metres of personal space). 46 .     The applicant instituted court proceedings. His written complaint was sent from the Alytus Correctional Home, claiming that the conditions at the Šiauliai facility had been deplorable: the remand prison was overcrowded, the cells were “unsanitary”, and he had been held together with smoking inmates, even though he was a non-smoker. During the hearings before the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court the applicant also complained that the cells lacked proper ventilation and that the toilets were not separated from the cells. 47 .     On 12 November 2012 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court acknowledged a breach of the applicant’s rights under the domestic law, as regards overcrowding. The court noted his statement during the hearing that he had complained to the Šiauliai Remand Prison about being kept with smokers. Although the applicant had not complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the first-instance court nevertheless deemed it proper to examine his complaint in the light of the Court’s case-law criteria. Having done that, the court considered that the applicant’s rights had been violated on account of overcrowding, as it was understood under the domestic law, and that while it was close to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, it did not pass that threshold. Lastly, the applicant had instituted court proceedings a year and a half after the date on which he had left the Šiauliai Remand Prison, by which time his psychological and physical suffering had diminished. Accordingly, there was no need to award him any pecuniary compensation. The court did not address the applicant’s complaint of unsanitary conditions. 48 .     On 10 May 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court partly granted the applicant’s appeal. It considered, however, that in his appeal the applicant had touched upon not only those issues which he had raised in his complaint to the first-instance court, but had also complained about other aspects of his detention. In particular, according to the Supreme Administrative Court, in his appeal the applicant had argued that the cells had lacked an artificial ventilation system, that the natural ventilation system had been insufficient, and that the toilet in the cell was of the type that should only be installed outside ( kameroje esantis tualetas ir pati kamera buvo vienoje patalpoje, o sanitariniam mazgui įrengti panaudotas lauko tualeto principas ). The appellate court considered that the applicant should have raised those issues in his complaint ( skunde ) to the first-instance court. Accordingly, it dismissed the applicant’s allegations of lack of ventilation and proper toilet facilities. 49 .     As to overcrowding, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the number of inmates at the Šiauliai Remand Prison often changed during the day. On the basis of the documents provided by the Šiauliai Remand Prison, the Supreme Administrative Court established that for seventeen   days the applicant had been held in “overcrowded” cells and for twenty-one days he had been held in cells where the minimum personal space was “very close to, but did not meet the [domestic] norms”. The Šiauliai facility had thus breached the applicant’s statutory right to be held in a cell where he would have 5 or 3.6 square metres of space. Having reviewed the Court’s case-law on conditions of detention, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the inconveniences suffered by the applicant during those thirty-eight days went beyond those inherent in detention and were intense enough to amount to a violation of Article 3. The court nevertheless noted that there was no evidence in the case that the remand facility had intentionally sought to debase the applicant. The applicant could go out for a stroll for one hour per day, thus spending some time outside his cell. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court observed that there was no evidence in the file that the applicant had ever asked the remand prison administration to be held in a non-smoking cell. Nor was there any evidence in the file that he had been held in unsanitary conditions. The appellate court considered that the applicant had lodged his complaint more than one and a half years after his release from the Šiauliai Remand Prison, and thus had had a possibility to gather evidence and to provide it to the court. Having taken into account the economic situation in the country, the Supreme Administrative Court awarded the applicant LTL   200 (EUR   60) for his suffering. II.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     As to the State’s responsibility for the damage caused by inadequate detention conditions 50.     Article 30 of the Constitution reads as follows: “The person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court. Compensation for material and moral [i.e. non-pecuniary] damage inflicted upon a person shall be established by law.” 51.     The Civil Code reads as follows: Article 6.250.   Non-pecuniary damage “1.     Non-pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person’s suffering, emotional experiences, inconveniences, mental shock, emotional depression, humiliation, deterioration of reputation, diminution of possibilities to associate with others, etc., evaluated by a court in terms of money. 2.     Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated only in cases provided for by law. Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated in all cases where it is incurred due to crime, health impairment or deprivation of life, as well as in other cases provided for by law. The court, in assessing the amount of non-pecuniary damage, shall take into consideration the consequences of such damage sustained, the gravity of the fault of the person by whom the damage is caused, his financial status, the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person, and any other circumstances of importance for the case, as well as the criteria of good faith, justice and reasonableness.” Article 6.271.   Liability to compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions of institutions of public authority “1.     Damage caused by unlawful acts of institutions of public authority must be compensated by the State from the means of the State budget, irrespective of the fault of a concrete public servant or other employee of public authority institutions. Damage caused by unlawful actions of municipal authority institutions must be redressed by the municipality from its own budget, irrespective of its employee’s fault. 2.     For the purposes of this Article, the notion ‘institution of public authority’ means any subject of the public law (state or municipal institution, official, public servant or any other employee of these institutions, etc.), as well as a private person executing functions of public authority. 3.     For the purposes of this Article, the notion ‘action’ means any action (active or passive actions) of an institution of public authority or its employees, that directly affects the rights, liberties and interests of persons (legal acts or individual acts adopted by the institutions of state and municipal authority, administrative acts, physical acts, etc., with the exception of court judgements – verdicts in criminal cases, decisions in civil and administrative cases and orders). 4.     Civil liability of the state or municipality, subject to this Article, shall arise where employees of public authority institutions fail to act in the manner prescribed by law for these institutions and their employees.” 52.     Pursuant to Article 15 § 1 (3) of the Law on Administrative Proceedings ( Administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymas ), administrative courts decide cases concerning damage caused by unlawful acts of public authorities, as provided for in Article 6.271 of the Civil Code. 53 .     The relevant part of the Law on Administrative Proceedings reads as follows: Article 57.   Evidence “1.     Evidence in an administrative case is all factual data found admissible by the court hearing the case and based upon which the court finds ... that there are circumstances which justify the claims and rebuttals of the parties to the proceedings and other circumstances which are relevant to the fair disposal of the case, or that there are no such circumstances ... 4.     Evidence is provided by the parties and other participants in the proceedings. If necessary, the court may propose to those persons to provide supplementary evidence or, on their request or on its own initiative, to obtain necessary evidence or to obtain explanations from officials.” B.     As to the space requirement in Lithuanian prisons 54 .   In accordance with Hygiene Standard HN   76:1999 ( Laisvės atėmimo ir kardomojo kalinimo įstaigos. Įrengimas, eksploatavimo tvarka, sveikatos priežiūra ), approved by the Minister of Health on 22 October 1999, an inmate held in a remand prison cell ( tardymo izoliatoriaus kamera ) or in a prison cell ( kalėjimo kamera ) must have no less than 5 square metres of personal space. For persons held at the Prison Department Hospital, the space requirement was established at no less than 7 square metres per bed. A person held in a dormitory-type room ( pataisos darbų kolonijos bendrabučio gyvenamasis kambarys ) was entitled to at least 3 square metres of personal space. 55 .     According to the secondary legislation adopted by the Minister of Justice, Minister of Health and the Prison Department, as of 30 April 2010, personal space in a dormitory-type room has to be no less than 3.1 square metres. As of 11 May 2010, persons held in a remand prison cell or arrest cell ( areštinės kamera ) should have no less than 3.6 square metres of personal space. C.     Other relevant legislation 56.     Article 69 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences ( Bausmių vykdymo kodeksas ) provides that a person who has been sentenced to deprivation of liberty is to serve his entire term in the same correctional institution ( vienoje pataisos įstaigoje ). He may be transferred from that institution only because of illness or in exceptional circumstances. The Code refers to the Internal Regulations of Correctional Facilities ( Pataisos įstaigų vidaus tvarkos taisyklės ) for further guidance on the matter of prisoners’ transfer. 57 .     The Internal Regulations of Correctional Facilities provide that a convicted person may be transferred to another institution “on doctor’s orders” or “for other exceptional circumstances, which prevent holding the convicted person in the same correctional institution ( dėl kitų išimtinių aplinkybių, kliudančių nuteistąjį toliau laikyti toje pačioje pataisos įstaigoje )”. The Regulations do not specify what “exceptional circumstances” means. If the governor of the correctional facility considers that there are exceptional circumstances preventing from keeping the inmate in that correctional facility, he may submit a reasoned request ( motyvuota išvada ) and the prisoner’s character report ( charakteristika ) to the Prisons Department, which decides whether to transfer the prisoner (point 72 of the Regulations). 58.     Article 19 of the Law on Tobacco Control ( Tabako kontrolės įstatymas ) provides that smoking is to be prohibited in common living areas and other common areas where non-smokers may be forced to breathe smoke-polluted air. Article 52 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings at the relevant time provided that the claimant has a right to withdraw the claim or to change or specify the basis for his claim at any stage of the proceedings, but until the moment the court leaves the hearing room to deliberate. On 1 July 2012 the Law on Probation ( Probacijos įstatymas ) has come into effect. It defines the major re-socialization forms for persons on probation, and resocialization is set as a fundamental component of probation (also see paragraph 68 below). D.     Case-law submitted by the parties 59 .     To illustrate the criteria applied by the domestic courts when deciding on conditions of detention cases, the Government referred to a number of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments. Those principles may be enumerated as follows: −     the repeated nature of the negative consequences on the prisoner; the courts should evaluate whether some of the violations of the detention conditions complained of by the inmate were eliminated in a timely manner; −     when the claim for damages was submitted; on numerous occasions the administrative courts considered that the person’s mental and physical suffering was most acute at the time the person was in the inappropriate detention conditions; the person’s suffering diminishes over time; −     the intentions of the prison personnel; the courts should determine whether the prison administration deliberately sought to humiliate the prisoner or otherwise treat him inhumanely by worsening his detention conditions; conversely, the courts were also to take into account whether the prison administration had made efforts to improve the situation of the detainee; −     the nature of the detention regime; a minor non-compliance with the minimum space requirement could be partly offset by freedom of movement within the prison; −     the impact, if any, on the inmate’s health; and −     whether the inmate had complained about the conditions to the prison administration. 60.     As to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Administrative Court has held a number of times that not all violations caused by improper conditions of detention would necessarily lead to a pecuniary award. Acknowledgment of a violation of a person’s rights may also constitute a sufficient and adequate redress. Nevertheless, such means of redress should only be applied in exceptional cases, where the damage suffered by the aggrieved person was of minor significance, for example when a non-smoker was held with smokers for one day only. The same means of redress applied when the minimum personal space requirement had not been met: this could be considered as a minor violation. Conversely, where the duration of the violation was sufficiently long, a mere acknowledgment of the violation could not be considered as an adequate form of just satisfaction. Last but not least, the standard of living in Lithuania was relevant. The sum of compensation should reflect the State’s economic and financial situation, as well as the living standard. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS A.     The CPT general standards 61 .     The relevant extracts from the 2nd General Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) (CPT/Inf (92) 3) read as follows: “46.     Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT’s mandate. All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered, perhaps significantly. Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison, or in a particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint. 47.     A satisfactory programme of activities (work, education, sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the well-being of prisoners ... [P]risoners cannot simply be left to languish for weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells, and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells. The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ... 48.     Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ... 49.     Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ... 50.     The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners.” 62 .     The CPT’s 7th General Report ( CPT/Inf (97) 10) contains the following passage: “13.     As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd General Report, prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the Committee’s mandate (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph   46). An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence betw