CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 janvier 2019

.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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB53E6B86 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s946186CE { height:1.2pt } .sE448E026 { width:5.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9EC3D245 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2AAEDDA8 { width:23.06%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7594344E { width:14.18%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD48ED27 { width:18.7%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s733B637C { width:18.36%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6CC12E9 { width:19.98%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s87400AA6 { width:5.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .sF1BB8CCA { width:23.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .sEE75EC9C { width:14.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .s9B426C84 { width:18.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sAB1B0AFE { width:18.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .sF8EAF402 { width:19.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s493CB0A7 { height:18.85pt } .sA055E78A { height:17.9pt } .s696873B7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s3ED44ACC { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sB5A00430 { height:7.2pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9CEB4500 { height:38.9pt } .sF9D21443 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.48pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6C09C564 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAE56C1D { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.48pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s13BC263B { height:24.5pt } .sEFE2FACD { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sC2EF534F { width:22pt } .s7E246A19 { width:64pt } .s68A88587 { width:97.9pt } .s70CB50B8 { width:0.55pt } .sFB8C5C3E { width:56.65pt } .s6844857D { width:57.7pt } .s6CDD9A4C { width:68.25pt } .sD34E6D70 { height:41.95pt } .sBD5C6575 { height:36.25pt } .sC4E9E8B1 { height:42.7pt } .s7ECB4500 { height:39.2pt } .sAC4B089D { height:87.5pt } .sEB92D88E { height:63.35pt } .s5D9C7D5F { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.48pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s67D0DCF8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAC70A43D { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.48pt 5.4pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCAE4756B { height:51.95pt } .s6993535E { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt } .s7D9F07F { height:98.55pt } .s27A06D70 { height:49.35pt } .sC6B50776 { height:51.2pt } .s85822762 { height:96.8pt } .s1FFC756B { height:52.25pt } .sE788F07F { height:99.95pt } .sE4864500 { height:37.7pt } .s7E852270 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s58081450 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC838D59F { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s27DE6D70 { height:49.15pt } .sC50AE8B1 { height:42.4pt } .sB8326DE9 { height:85pt } .s11E06D70 { height:43.15pt } .s6597089D { height:88.6pt } .s9FE64EC { height:71.1pt } .s2FE76575 { height:39.05pt } .sFA6A4DF3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA05D2921 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s87D973DC { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA300089D { height:82.1pt } .sEA50756B { height:50.05pt } .s857564EC { height:75.4pt } .s6E5E089D { height:85.6pt } .s2BC74500 { height:31.6pt } .s2B9563C9 { height:7.55pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; 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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sA2251F55 { width:203.09pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }     SECOND SECTION           CASE OF NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA   (Applications nos. 23226/16 and 6 others)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   29   January 2019     FINAL   24/06/2019       This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.     PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The case of Mr Nikitin The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions B.     The case of Mr Villems The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions C.     The case of Mr Karp The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions D.     The case of Mr Jeret The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions E.     The case of Mr Savva The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions F.     The case of Mr Kaziks The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions G.     The case of Mr Tarasovski The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions H.     General conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Relevant domestic procedural law 1.     Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Halduskohtumenetluse seadustik) 2.     Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus) 3.     Administrative Procedure Act (Haldusmenetluse seadus) 4.     State Liability Act (Riigivastutuse seadus), as in force since 31   August 2011 5.     Treatment Plan (Täitmisplaan) as in force until 15 October 2012 B.     Relevant domestic law on conditions of detention 1.     Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus) 2.     Regulation no. 72 of the Minister of Justice on the Internal Prison Rules (Vangla sisekorraeeskiri) C.     Relevant domestic practice III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL A.     European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) B.     European Prison Rules   THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility 1.     Preliminary remarks 2.     Exhaustion of domestic remedies 3.     Victim status 4.     The complaints concerning having between 3 and 4   square metres of personal space in Tallinn Prison in respect of Mr   Kaziks, Mr Karp and Mr Savva 5.     Conclusion as to admissibility B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Court’s assessment 3.     Victim status of Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems, Mr Jeret, Mr   Kaziks, Mr   Tarasovski and Mr Savva III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     General principles C.     Application of those principles to the present cases 1.     Application of the statutory time-limit for lodging a complaint for compensation in respect of Mr   Nikitin, Mr Kaziks and Mr   Tarasovski 2.     Effectiveness of the compensatory remedy with regard to the redress afforded in the cases of Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems and Mr   Tarasovski 3.     Length of the proceedings in respect of Mr Jeret IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION V.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage B.     Costs and expenses C.     Default interest FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SPANO, LEMMENS AND KJØLBRO PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LEMMENS In the case of Nikitin and others v. Estonia , The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Ledi Bianku,   Julia Laffranque,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Ivana Jelić, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11   December 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in seven applications (nos.   23226/16, 43059/16, 57738/16, 59152/16, 60178/16, 63211/16 and 75362/16) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Estonian nationals, Mr Vladimir Nikitin, Mr   Martin Villems, Mr Igor Karp, Mr Peeter Jeret, Mr Aleksei Savva, Mr   Guntars Kaziks and Mr Vitali Tarasovski (“the applicants”), on 19   April   2016, 8 July 2016, 28 September 2016, 4 October 2016, 12   October 2016, 30 October 2016 and 30 November 2016 respectively. 2.     The applicant Mr Jeret was represented by Mr Risto Käbi; the applicants Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems, Mr Kaziks and Mr   Savva were represented by Mr Denis Piskunov; the applicant Mr Karp was represented by Mr Leonid   Olovyanishnikov; and the applicant Mr Tarasovski was represented by Mr Janek Valdma, all lawyers practising in Tallinn. Mr   Nikitin, Mr Jeret, Mr Kaziks and Mr Tarasovski were granted legal aid. As Mr Nikitin failed to respond to the Registry’s letters of 19 October 2017 and 9 January 2018 requesting that he return to the Court a duly completed claim form for fees and expenses and a bank transfer payment form, he was not reimbursed through the legal aid scheme. 3.     The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Maris   Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Mr   Nikitin, Mr Villems, Mr Jeret, Mr   Kaziks and Mr Tarasovski also complained that they had not had effective domestic remedies at their disposal. Mr Savva also complained of limited contact with his family. 5.     On 16 May 2017 the Government were given notification of the applications of Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems, Mr   Jeret, Mr Kaziks and Mr   Tarasovski concerning the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and the remainder of application no. 59152/16 lodged by Mr   Jeret was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On 11   July 2017 the Government were given notification of the applications of Mr Karp and Mr Savva concerning the complaints under Article   3 and Mr Savva’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     All seven applicants were detained in Tallinn Prison in Estonia. Their individual circumstances are detailed below. A.     The case of Mr Nikitin 7.     The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a life sentence.   He was detained in Tallinn Prison from 27   November 2007 to 22   October 2013. Subsequently, he was transferred to Viru Prison, where he is currently serving his sentence. 8.     According to the applicant, during his stay in Tallinn Prison he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular, the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded, providing less than 3 square metres of personal space throughout his confinement. 9 .     According to the Government, during the material time, the applicant was held in different cells which provided less than 3 square metres of personal space for 1,023 days. Out of that time, the applicant spent 898 days in open-section cells with no in-cell lavatory, and 125 days in locked cells with an in-cell lavatory. The Government also submitted that in the period from 2008-13 the applicant had been engaged in employment. In particular, he had worked from February to July 2008 for an average of 140 hours per month; from February to December 2009 for an average of 165 hours per month; every month in 2010 for an average of 168 hours per month; every month in 2011 for an average of 169 hours per month; every month in 2012 for an average of 168 hours per month; and from January to April 2013 for an average of 147 hours per month. He had also participated in social programmes from May 2007 to April 2009, had been on two short-term visits and five long-term visits, and on three occasions had attended court hearings. 10.     According to data provided by the Government, during the relevant period the applicant was detained in twelve different cells under different prison regimes, as follows:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 27.11.2007-30.01.2008 410 4.86 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors open at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   31.01.2008-22.07.2008 15 2.75-3.21 m 2 Open section Cell doors open the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym   23.02.2008-24.02.2008 1 14.80 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors open at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   26.02.2008-25.07.2008 15 2.75-3.21 m 2 Open section Cell doors open the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym   26.07.2008-25.01.2009 312, 446, 147, 450 2.42-7.61 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   26.01.2009-09.02.2009 34, 39 2.7-3.46 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors open at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   10.02.2009-26.03.2009 15 2.75 m 2 Open section Cell doors open the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym   27.03.2009-28.03.2009 6 14.57 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors open at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   30.03.2009-25.04.2013 15 2.75-4.82 m 2 Open section Cell doors open the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym   26.04.2013-22.10.2013 119, 145, 208, 210 2.5-13.70 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   11.     The applicant did not contest those data. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 12.     On 27 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. 13.     On 6 July 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court, seeking compensation in the amount of 40,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. On 6 January 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him EUR 250 (administrative case no. 3-14-51413). 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. 14 .     By a judgment of 1 October 2015 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in part. The court applied the statutory time-limit separately with regard to the periods the applicant had spent in each different cell and held that the time-limit had therefore started to run after each transfer to a new cell. The court thus refused to examine the applicant’s complaint with regard to the period from 27 November 2007 to 9 February 2009 on the grounds that he had not complied with the mandatory pre-action procedure as required under Article 47 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, namely because the complaint had been lodged outside the time-limit provided for under section 17(3) of the State Liability Act. The Court of Appeal reasoned its refusal to examine part of the claim as follows: “15.     In order to establish whether the applicant has met the pre-action procedure requirements, in the instant case the three-year statutory time-limit, the Court of Appeal will consider the change in the relevant conditions of the applicant’s detention which occurred in connection with his transfer from one cell to another. In these circumstances, the time-limit started running each time a change occurred.” The court also refused to examine the complaint with regard to the period after 23 October 2013 as by that date he had already been transferred to Viru Prison. 15.     With regard to the period from 10   February 2009 to 22 October 2013, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had had less than 3   square metres of personal space for 815 days and more than 3   square metres for 895 days. The court also found that he had not been kept in less than 2.5 square metres of personal space, which had been the minimum requirement under domestic law at the material time. The court was of the view that the applicant’s detention in cells with less than 3 square metres of personal space had been degrading within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention. However, the applicant had had the right to a walk for an hour a day and the use of a gym once a week. Moreover, for most of the period under consideration (720 days) he had been in an open section (cell no. 15), where he had been required to stay in the cell only at night. He had therefore been able to move freely around the section during the day. He had spent nineteen days in a punishment cell, and had also been engaged in several social programmes. Taking the above factors into consideration, the court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages as unfounded because the violation of his rights had not reached the minimum level of severity to justify monetary compensation. 16.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 28 March 2016. B.     The case of Mr Villems 17.   The applicant was born in 1971. He was detained in Tallinn Prison from 7 July 2011 to 6   March 2013 as a remand prisoner and from 7   March 2013 to 17 April 2013 as a convicted prisoner. Subsequently, he was transferred to Tartu Prison where he is currently serving his sentence. 18.     According to the applicant, during his stay in Tallinn Prison he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular, the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he had less than 3   square metres of personal space at his disposal. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of outdoor exercise daily. The outdoor exercise yard did not exceed the measurements of the cell and was used together with other inmates. However, as the applicant was not separated from smokers, he could not go to the outdoor exercise yard for six months. The shower could only be used once a week for twenty minutes, while the detainees also had to wash their clothes there because there was no hot water in the cells. There was also no privacy in the shower room. 19.     According to the information submitted by the Government, from 9   October to 27 November 2012 the applicant attended a training course on communication skills (seven sessions lasting 1.5 to 2 hours each). He was also able to spend time outside the cell during meetings with his lawyer and while attending court hearings (on eleven occasions from September 2011 to March 2013). 20.     According to the data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in different cells in a closed section:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 06.07.2011-17.04.2013 89, 130, 314, 319, 324, 328, 347, 413, 417, 419, 428, 438, 443, 446, 453 2.45-15.36 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 21.     On 9 May 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. On 2 July 2013 Tallinn Prison dismissed his complaint as unfounded. 22.     On 25 July 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court, seeking fair compensation at the discretion of the court for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. On 12 February 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in the amount of EUR   1,700 (administrative case no. 3-13-1589). 23.     On 14 January 2014 the applicant lodged a further complaint with Tallinn Prison, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the fact that 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. 24.     On 25 March 2014 the applicant lodged another complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court, seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the fact that he had not been permitted to take walks separately from smokers. By a judgment of 15 September 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint (administrative case no. 3-14-344). 25.     The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment of 12 February 2014 (administrative case no. 3-13-1589). The prison administration explained in its appeal that at the material time it had in any event been unable to provide the applicant with more than 2.7   square metres of personal space and that transferring him to another prison would probably not have solved the issue of over-crowding. The applicant also challenged the first-instance judgment of 15 September 2014 (administrative case no. 3-14-344). On 1 October 2015 the Tartu Court of Appeal joined the cases. 26.     By its judgment of 3 November 2015 the Tartu Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgments and upheld the applicant’s complaint, partially awarding him compensation in the amount of EUR 100 for non-pecuniary damage resulting from not being permitted to take walks without smokers. The second-instance court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s complaints on the grounds, inter alia , that he 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 to another prison or cell. 27.     The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 14 January 2016. C.     The case of Mr Karp 28.     The applicant was born in 1970. He was detained in Tallinn Prison on five occasions: from April to October 2008; from September to October   2009; from January to February 2010; from 23 February to 9   November 2012; and from 27   December 2012 to 31 October 2013. Subsequently, he was transferred to Viru Prison. He was released on 29   September 2017. 29.     The applicant alleged that during his stay in Tallinn Prison, he had been detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular, the cells in which he had been placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confinement he had had at his disposal less than 3   square metres of personal space. The cell had had poor lighting and lacked ventilation, and the walls had been covered with thick mould as the prisoners had had to wash and dry their clothes there. 30.     According to the data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison in five different periods under different prison regimes as follows:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 11.04.2008-10.10.2008 140, 347, 441 2.06-3.10 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk 2 10.09.2009-21.10.2009 314 2.46-3.69 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk 3 13.01.2010-17.02.2010 144, 454, 463 2.44-7.30 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk 4 23.02.2012-18.09.2012 140, 433, 456 2.35-3.41 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   19.09.2012-09.11.2012 34 3.02-3.78 m 2 Open section Cell doors open the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym 5 27.12.2012-31.10.2013 208, 316, 321, 322, 415, 424, 448, 450 2.40-8.06 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   31.     The applicant did not contest those data. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 32.     On 7 April 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. The prison did not respond to his complaint. 33.     On 17 June 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court, seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 500 per month or EUR 17 per day for twenty-six months for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. The prison administration explained in its reply with regard to out-of-cell-activities that, owing to statutory requirements and restrictions placed on remand prisoners, it could not permit the applicant to use the gym or participate in other recreational activities. 34 .     On 15 December 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint with regard to the periods from April to September 2008, from September to October 2009, and from January to February 2010, on the grounds that he had not complied with the mandatory pre-action procedure as required under Article 47 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure as the complaint had been lodged outside the time-limit provided for under section 17(3) of the State Liability Act. With regard to the periods from 23 February 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. 35.     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 showed 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 had not complained either about the court’s refusal to examine his complaints regarding the periods from April to September 2008, from September to October 2009, and from January to February 2010, or about the other conditions of detention allegedly constituting violations, with the exception of overcrowding. 36.     The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused him leave to appeal on 28 March 2016. D.     The case of Mr Jeret 37.     The applicant was born in 1959. He was placed in Tallinn Prison on 25 February 2011. From 25 February to 17 May 2011 he was in pre-trial custody; he was then subjected to the reception regime ( vastuvõturežiim ) and from 12   July 2011 was detained as a convicted prisoner. On an unspecified date he was transferred to Viru Prison, where he is currently serving his sentence. 38.     According to the applicant, during his stay in Tallinn Prison he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular, the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he had less than 3   square metres of personal space at his disposal. 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, even though it had been prescribed by a doctor. He suffered 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 a foot and nail infection. 39 .     According to the Government, during the material time, the applicant was held for 416 days in different cells which provided less than 3   square metres of personal space. For most of that time he was held in a semi-open unit for convicted prisoners. In 2012, 2013 and 2014 the applicant was engaged in employment working one hour a day. In particular, in October, November and December 2012 he worked a total of eighteen, sixteen and fifteen hours respectively; in November and December 2013, a total of five and thirteen hours; and in January and February 2014, eleven and five hours respectively. He was also able to spend time outside the cell to attend eight short meetings and six court hearings. 40.     According to data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison under different regimes as follows:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 25.02.2011-11.07.2011 217, 218, 236, 247, 340, 463, 2.46-3.72 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   12.07.2011-22.01.2013 138, 214, 218, 219, 221, 231, 245 2.41-5 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors opened at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   23.01.2013-24.01.2013 78 9 m 2 Punishment cell Right to a one-hour walk   25.01.2013-22.10.2013 121, 138, 140, 147, 402 2.82-13.19 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   23.10.2013-25.10.2013 218 2.97-3.71 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors opened at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   26.10.2013-30.10.2013 80 7.51m 2 Punishment cell Right to a one-hour walk   31.10.2013-21.11.2013 218 2.97-3.71 m 2 Semi-open section Cell doors opened at least four hours a day, right to a walk and use of gym   41.     The applicant did not contest those data. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 42.     On 21 January 2014, while still serving his sentence in Tallinn Prison, the applicant lodged a complaint with the prison administration, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of being held in inadequate conditions of detention from 25 February 2011 to 21   November 2013. Tallinn Prison did not decide on his complaint in due time. 43.     On 27 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tallinn Administrative Court, seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 87,600 euros for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention.     On 19 March 2015 the Tallinn Administrative Court partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him EUR 1,100 (administrative case no. 3-14-50937).     The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging appeals before the Tallinn Court of Appeal. 44.     By its judgment of 17 February 2016 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals but changed the reasoning of the first-instance judgement. The court granted the applicant EUR1100 on the grounds that he had been in inadequate conditions of detention and had not been provided with a lactose-free diet for two years, even though 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. 45.     The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused leave to appeal on 25 April 2016. E.     The case of Mr Savva 46.     The applicant was born in 1973. He was detained in Tallinn Prison on four occasions: from 25 August to 23   September 2004, from 28   February to 4 October 2007, from 28   October 2008 to 2 June 2009, and from 20   May 2010 to 14 July 2011. 47.     According to the applicant, during his stay in Tallinn Prison, he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular, the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and he had less than 3   square metres 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 square metres and was used by his 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 high volume. Meetings and phone calls with his family were limited. From 28 October 2008 to 2 June 2009, when the applicant was in the open section, the conditions of detention were no better. The cells were small, damp and cold. As there was no toilet in the cell, he sometimes had to wait for an hour until the guard let him use the communal toilet. 48.     According to the data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison during four different periods under different prison regimes, as follows:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 28.02.2007-04.10.2007 147, 414, 432, 336 2.42-2.98 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk 2 28.10.2007-30.10.2008 129 2.48-7.45 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   31.10.2008-26.01.2009 44 2.53-3.09 m 2 Open section Cell doors opened the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym 3 03.03.2009 138 4.82 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   04.03.2009-02.06.2009 44 2.53-3.97 m 2 Open section Cell doors opened the whole day, right to a walk and use of gym 4 20.05.2010-14.07.2011 147, 214, 219, 246, 253, 359, 441 2.42-4.03 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   49.     The applicant did not contest those data. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 50.     On 30 January 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. 51.     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. 52.     On 21 May 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him EUR 750 with regard to the period from 20 May 2010 to 14 July 2011. It dismissed the complaint with regard to the periods from 28 February to 4 October 2007 and from 28 October 2008 to 2   June 2009 on the grounds that it had been lodged outside the time-limit provided for under section 17(3) of the State Liability Act. The court of first instance refused to examine his complaints with regard to restrictions on communication with his family, infrequent access to a shower, and the playing of loud music in the prison, because the applicant had not raised those issues with the prison administration.   The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging appeals with the Tartu Court of Appeal. 53.   In its judgment of 23 February 2016 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment with regard to both the period from 20 May 2010 to 29   January 2011 and the amount of money the applicant had been awarded. It refused to examine the applicant’s complaint with regard to the impugned period on the grounds that he had not complied with the mandatory pre ‑ action procedure as required under Article 47 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure as the complaint had been lodged outside the time-limit provided for under section   17(3) of the State Liability Act. The Court of Appeal reasoned the refusal to examine part of the claim as follows: “14.     According to the appeal Mr Savva had repeatedly been detained in Tallinn Prison already before May 2010. Therefore, he should have immediately perceived the lack of personal space and the impact of it ... 15.     The argument by Tallinn Prison, that the claim can be seen as [having been lodged] in due time only for the period of three years before the complaint was lodged, i.e. from 30.01.2011 to 14.07.2011, is correct. ... 17.     The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that a person who is (allegedly) detained in degrading conditions for a long period has to realise the unlawfulness of those conditions and the damage sustained already when he is being kept in those conditions ...” 54.     With regard to the period from 30   January to 14 July 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him EUR 50 on the grounds that for nineteen days the personal space available to him had fallen below 3 square metres of floor surface in the cell and he had been locked in the cell for twenty-three hours per day. 55.     The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused him leave to appeal on 14 April 2016. F.     The case of Mr Kaziks 56.     The applicant was born in 1967. From 28 December 2009 to 9   November 2011 and from 7   to 21 December 2011 he was detained in Tallinn Prison. Until 20 October 2011 he was held in pre-trial custody and for the remaining period he was detained as a convicted prisoner under the reception regime. 57.     According to the applicant, during his stay in Tallinn Prison, he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention. In particular,   the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he had less than 3   square metres of personal space at his disposal. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of outdoor exercise per day. 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. 58.     According to data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison in two different periods as follows:     Period Cell No. Personal space Regime   1 28.12.2009-09.11.2011 87, 140, 335, 354, 357, 410, 413, 418, 424, 425 2.35-14.60 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk 2 07.12.2011-21.12.2011 421 2.40-2.88 m 2 Closed cell Right to a one-hour walk   59.     The applicant did not contest those data. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 60.     On 21 January 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with Tallinn Prison, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detention. Tallinn Prison did not decide on his complaint in due time. 61.     On 29 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against Tallinn Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court, seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 11,954 for non-pecuniary damage resulting from inadequate conditions of detention. 62.     On 29 September 2015 the Tartu Administrative Court partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him EUR 315 (administrative case no. 3-14-50997). The applicant and Tallinn Prison challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging appeals before the Tartu Court of Appeal. 63.     By its judgment of 10 March 2016 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, allowed the appeal of Tallinn Prison and quashed the first-instance judgment. It refused to examine the applicant’s complaint with regard to the period from 28 December 2009 to 20   January 2011 on the grounds that he had not complied with the mandatory pre-action procedure requirements under Article 47 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure as the complaint had been lodged outside the time-limit provided for under section 17(3) of the State Liability Act. The Court of Appeal reasoned the refusal to examine part of the claim as follows: “17.     The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that given the nature of the suffering described by the applicant, he should have realised the impact of the relevant circumstances practically from the first day of his detention in Tallinn Prison ... 18.     The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the applicant, who was allegedly living in degrading conditions for nearly two years, should have realised the unlawfulness of such conditions and the damage that was being caused to him already when he was living in those conditions and [the fact that] the time-limit for lodging a complaint had also started running. It follows from the nature of non-pecuniary damage that the damage occurs as soon as the relevant action takes place and the person is therefore immediately aware of the damage. Therefore, the applicant became aware of the damage and the body [responsible for] causing that damage already while he was living in the relevant conditions and thus did not abide by the three-year statutory time-limit when lodging his complaint with the prison administration with regard to the period from 28.12.2009 to 20.01.2011.” 64.     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. It reasoned that the general conditions of the applicant’s detention had been appropriate. Considering also the short period, namely thirteen days spent in a cell affording less than 3 square metres of personal space, the conditions of his detention had not attained the minimum level of severity to amount to degrading treatment. 65.     The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which refused him leave to appeal on 28 April 2016. G.     The case of Mr Tarasovski 66.     The applicant was born in 1978. From 24 October 2008 to 26 July 2011 and from 23 April to 7 May 2013 the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison. He was in pre-trial detention until 30 July 2010, under the reception regime until 18 August 2010 and was detained as a convicted person from 19 August 2010. Subsequently he was transferred to Viru Prison where he is currently serving his sentence. 67.     According to the applicant, he was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison. In particular, the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded. Throughout his confinement he had less than 3 square metres of personal space at his disposal. Moreover, he was locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of outdoor exercise per day. The outdoor exercise yard measured 15 square metres and was used together with other inmates. He had no access to a gym. 68.     According to the data provided by the Government, the applicant was detained in Tallinn