CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 28 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s42B60E3D { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE4770B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD28866C1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s38E5D7A { height:20.05pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1B566575 { height:34.65pt } .s888DE653 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s62AAE78A { height:15.8pt } .s60490F0A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s836098B3 { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:normal; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD25AD713 { margin-left:61.87pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s475A5F57 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:65.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE0D9C38F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:103.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA00C457 { margin-left:33.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3FC6DD7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:176.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16800832 { width:5.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC5920847 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:212.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s89627C5A { width:9.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6D508EB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:212.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s868E2C26 { width:6.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s718DA637 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:176.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBE9DBF2 { width:5.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1F18D94 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:137.21pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sABFB36BE { width:4.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9FB498F7 { width:4.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s88AD0518 { width:147.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF SCHMIDT AND ŠMIGOL v. ESTONIA (Applications nos. 3501/20 and 2 others)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments and security measures in prison resulting in protracted periods of solitary confinement • Practice of using solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure for long and consecutive periods of time, in principle, incompatible with Art   3 save for exceptional circumstances and as measure of last resort • Domestic maximum 45-day legal limit for solitary confinement of considerable length and rendered practically worthless by consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments • Applicants in solitary confinement for uninterrupted periods exceeding that legal limit • Prolonged solitary confinement entailed an inherent risk of harmful effect on any person’s mental health, irrespective of the material or other conditions surrounding it • Solitary confinement to be alternated with periods of return to regular prison regime; the longer the periods of solitary confinement, the longer the intervening periods under regular prison conditions • Doubtful whether solitary confinement as form of disciplinary punishment in instant case was measure of last resort • Absence of compelling reasons as to existence of exceptional circumstances capable of justifying use of such long periods of solitary confinement as purely disciplinary measure • Applicants subjected to hardship going beyond unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention   STRASBOURG 28 November 2023   FINAL   28/02/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Schmidt and Šmigol v. Estonia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Jolien Schukking, President ,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (nos.   3501/20, 45907/20 and 43128/21) 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 an Estonian national, Mr Allan Schmidt (“the first applicant”) and by a stateless person, Mr Ilja Šmigol (“the second applicant”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Estonian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments against the applicants resulting in them spending protracted periods in solitary confinement, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments against the applicants and the placing of the first applicant in a locked isolation cell as a security measure. This resulted in the applicants spending periods of differing durations under conditions effectively amounting to solitary confinement, which – according to the applicants – violated their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were at the time in question detained in Viru Prison. The first applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   J.   Valdma, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. The second applicant was represented by Mr R. Paas, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. 3.     The Government were initially represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Kuurberg, Representative of Estonia to the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr T. Kolk, her successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. the first applicant (application n os . 3501/20 and   43128/21) Periods of solitary confinement 5.     Between June 2015 and April 2018 the first applicant, who was imprisoned at the time, received twenty-eight disciplinary punishments for refusing to perform his work duties, for carrying forbidden items on his person and for disobeying prison officers’ (unspecified) orders. On each occasion the punishment-cell regime ( kartserirežiim ) was imposed on him. The duration of the periods that the first applicant spent under the punishment-cell regime varied between five and forty-five days, but they were often enforced consecutively. 6 .     On one occasion additional security measures ( täiendavad julgeolekumeetmed ) – namely, placement in a locked isolation cell ( eraldatud lukustatud kamber ) – were imposed on the first applicant for throwing a bottle at a prison guard. 7 .     As a consequence, the first applicant spent the following periods under either the punishment-cell regime or the locked isolation-cell regime:   Dates Number of days Regime 27 June-4 September 2015 69 Punishment-cell regime 23 September-25 October 2015 33 Locked   isolation-cell regime 26 October-25   November 2015 30 Punishment-cell regime 1 December 2015-4   February 2016 65 Punishment-cell regime 11 March-10 May 2016 60 Punishment-cell regime 20 May 2016-6 June 2018 747 Punishment-cell regime   8.     There were breaks of between six and thirty-six days between the respective applications of these regimes. Proceedings concerning solitary confinement Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments 9 .     On 20 November 2017 the first applicant lodged an application with the prison authorities, asking to be allowed to spend a reasonable amount of time under the regular prison regime between the enforcement of disciplinary punishments. He noted that he had been held constantly under the punishment-cell regime since 20 May 2016. 10.     The prison dismissed both his application and a challenge ( vaie ) that he subsequently lodged against it. 11 .     On 11 February 2018 the first applicant brought an action in the Tartu Administrative Court. He asked the court to declare unlawful the consecutive enforcement (or enforcement with only brief pauses) of disciplinary punishments against him for the period from 27 June 2015 to the date of the lodging of his action, and to order the prison to cease that practice. He later clarified that he did not intend to challenge the imposition on him of disciplinary punishments themselves – only how they were enforced. 12.     On 9 October 2018 the Tartu Administrative Court in case no. 3-18-327 dismissed his action. The first applicant appealed. 13.     On 21 May 2019 the Tartu Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance judgment and partly allowed the first applicant’s claim. 14 .     The Tartu Court of Appeal firstly held that the separate periods of up to sixty-nine days that the applicant had spent under the punishment-cell regime between 25 June 2015 and 10 May 2016 (see paragraph 7 above) had been lawful. Analysing each of the periods separately, the court found that those periods had either been below the forty-five-day limit set out in the Imprisonment Act (see paragraph 63 below) or had not significantly exceeded it (the court having noted that the Imprisonment Act did not set an upper limit in respect of the consecutive enforcement of separate punishment-cell-regime measures by way of disciplinary punishment). The applicant had been able to spend a reasonable number of days (between six and fifty-two days) under the regular prison regime between the enforcement of the separate punishments. The Tartu Court of Appeal emphasised the fact that the first applicant had repeatedly breached prison rules and had presumably understood that such behaviour meant that he would face disciplinary punishments, which would be enforced immediately, in accordance with section 65(1) of the Imprisonment Act. The court found that the prison would not be able to carry out its statutory role if it was prevented from taking immediate action against systematic offenders and from enforcing disciplinary punishments against them. The court examined the first applicant’s health records and found that he had attended several consultations with the prison’s medical staff at the relevant time. He had thus been under the constant supervision of medical workers. The health problems that the first applicant had complained of were either not confirmed by the medical records of the time or could not be linked to the punishment-cell regime but rather to his earlier injuries or medical conditions. The first applicant had been able to spend one hour in the fresh air every day. The court noted that the applicant had applied for and had been granted permission to receive three short visits during the relevant period and had not applied for permission to receive any long visits. He had served his disciplinary punishments in an ordinary cell, although his bedding had been removed during the daytime. He had been given access to newspapers and been allowed to listen to the radio, read religious literature, make telephone calls, correspond by mail and participate in social programmes. 15 .     However, the Tartu Court of Appeal found that the period that the first applicant had spent under the punishment-cell regime between 20 May 2016 and 6 June 2018 (see paragraph 7 above) had been unlawful. Although it was proven that the applicant had repeatedly sought and received medical assistance during this period, it was not clear from the records whether and how the prison had in reality assessed the mental and physical consequences of the lengthy period that the first applicant had spent in solitary confinement. 16 .     On 10 September 2019 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal on points of law lodged by the first applicant. Proceedings concerning compensation (a)    First compensation proceedings 17 .     On 7 December 2017 the first applicant lodged an application with the Viru Prison authorities seeking compensation for the unlawful enforcement between 25 June 2015 and 6 December 2017 of disciplinary punishments imposed on him. 18.     The Viru Prison authorities dismissed his application, and the first applicant lodged a claim for compensation with the Tartu Administrative Court on 9 March 2018. He sought compensation in the sum of 20,000 euros (EUR) for the period from 25 June 2015 until 8 March 2018. 19 .     On 4 May 2018 the Tartu Administrative Court refused to examine his claim with regard to the period from 7 December 2017 until 8 March 2018 because he had not first raised (as had been mandatory) the complaint in question with Viru Prison (hereinafter “mandatory pre-action proceedings” – kohustuslik kohtueelne menetlus ) in respect of that period. That decision became final. 20.     On 25 October 2019 the Tartu Administrative Court allowed in part the first applicant’s claim for compensation and awarded him EUR 1,200 in respect of the period that he had spent in solitary confinement from 20 May 2016 until 6 December 2017. 21 .     The Tartu Administrative Court stated that spending that period – 566   days – in solitary confinement could be considered to have been degrading as well as damaging to the first applicant’s mental health. It analysed the first applicant’s medical records and concluded that he had had a record of mental health problems since 2013 and that the problems had deteriorated in the period 2018-19. The court concluded that the period in solitary confinement had, alongside other factors, contributed to the worsening of the first applicant’s mental health. The court noted that the first applicant had been able to participate in social programmes and had had regular conversations with various prison officers, a chaplain and a psychologist, but that such conversations had not taken place during a significant part of the time spent under the punishment-cell regime. He had not had any contact with fellow prisoners, which the court considered important. As for visits from family members, the court noted that while such visits were forbidden under domestic law to a prisoner undergoing the punishment-cell regime, this had not aggravated the first applicant’s situation, as it was proven that not having contact with his family had been his own choice. 22 .     As regards other shorter periods of solitary confinement between 27   June 2015 and 10 May 2016 (see paragraph 7 above), the Tartu Administrative Court noted that the first applicant’s treatment during those periods had been found to have been lawful in earlier court proceedings in respect of case no. 3-18-327 (see paragraph 14 above). Consequently, the first applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of those periods could not be granted, as a finding of unlawfulness was a prerequisite for awarding damages. 23 .     As regards the period from 23 September 2015 until 26 October 2015 (when the first applicant had been placed in a locked isolation cell for thirty-three days as part of additional security measures imposed on him – see paragraph 7 above), the Tartu Administrative Court explained that such security measures were different from disciplinary punishment. They were used on precautionary grounds in order to prevent security threats either to prisoners or prison officers. Therefore, a prison could not forgo applying them on the grounds that the prisoner in question had already spent some time in solitary confinement. In any event, the first applicant had been held under a regular prison regime directly before his placement in a locked isolation cell. That period of solitary confinement – which had been shorter than the forty-five-day limit set by domestic law – had thus been lawful; therefore, the compensation claim in that respect had to be dismissed. 24.     Furthermore, the court rejected the first applicant’s claim for compensation in so far as it concerned his back problems (which had allegedly worsened while he had been in solitary confinement), as the applicant had not raised that aspect in the mandatory pre-action proceedings. 25 .     Following an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Tartu Court of Appeal on 1   December 2020 quashed the first-instance judgment with respect to damages. Instead, it awarded the applicant EUR 1,700 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the 566 days that he had spent in solitary confinement between 20   May 2016 and 6 December 2017. 26 .     On 9 March 2021 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. (b)    Second compensation proceedings 27 .     In August 2018 the first applicant lodged an application with Viru Prison seeking compensation for the period that he had spent in solitary confinement from 7 December 2017 until 30 August 2018. 28.     The prison dismissed his application and on 12 December 2018 the applicant brought an action in the Tartu Administrative Court seeking compensation for the above-mentioned period that he had spent in solitary confinement. 29 .     The Tartu Administrative Court admitted for examination the applicant’s action for compensation. On 25 March 2020 the first applicant informed the court that he had been released from prison. As he subsequently failed to remain in contact with the court, on 14 October 2020 the Tartu Administrative Court refused to examine his claim. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. the second applicant (application n o . 45907/20) Periods of solitary confinement 30.     The second applicant, who was serving a prison sentence at the time, was placed several times under the punishment-cell regime as a disciplinary punishment for refusing to perform his work duties. 31 .     As a result of the consecutive enforcement of these disciplinary punishments, the applicant spent the following periods under the punishment-cell regime:   Dates Number of days Regime 1 June 2016-27 June 2017 392 Punishment-cell regime 29 June 2017-22 August 2017 55 Punishment-cell regime 24 August 2017-26   September 2017 34 Punishment-cell regime   32.     Although the second applicant was also subjected to the punishment-cell regime for numerous periods before 1 June 2016 and after 26 September 2017, and although the domestic court proceedings also concerned longer periods, he clarified that his application to the Court concerned exclusively the periods between 1 June 2016 and 26 September 2017. Proceedings concerning solitary confinement Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments on the second applicant 33.     In case no. 3-17-356 the second applicant lodged a claim with the Tartu Administrative Court seeking, inter alia , to have the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments declared unlawful. 34.     On 3 August 2017 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed his claim. The second applicant appealed. 35 .     On 29 March 2018 the Tartu Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance judgment and partly allowed the second applicant’s claim. The court declared unlawful the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments between June 2015 and June 2017 in respect of those periods spent during that time under the punishment-cell regime which had exceeded the forty-five-day limit set by domestic law. The court ruled that the prison had not explained how it had verified and come to the conclusion that the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments would not harm the second applicant’s health. 36.     The second applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court refused to examine on 2 October 2018. Proceedings concerning compensation 37.     On 17 November 2017 the second applicant lodged an application with the Viru Prison authorities for compensation for the unlawful enforcement of disciplinary punishments between 1 June 2016 and 9   November 2017. 38.     On 17 January 2018 the Viru Prison authorities dismissed the application. The second applicant then lodged a claim for compensation with the Tartu Administrative Court on 19 February 2018; he sought compensation in the sum of EUR 20,000 for the period from 1 June 2016 until 9 November 2017. 39.     On 14 December 2018 the Tartu Administrative Court in case no. 3-18-360 allowed the second applicant’s claim in part. Taking note of the final judgment in case no. 3-17-356 (see paragraph 35 above), the Tartu Administrative Court considered that the applicant had suffered non-pecuniary damage in respect of his solitary confinement between 1 June 2016 and 27 June 2017. However, it deemed the acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the prison’s practice of consecutive enforcement of separate disciplinary punishments to constitute sufficient redress. 40.     Following an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Tartu Court of Appeal on 27 June 2019 quashed the first-instance judgment. It found that the applicant should be awarded EUR 50 with respect to the non-pecuniary damage that he had suffered during the period identified by the first-instance court. The second applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 41 .     On 15 April 2020 the Supreme Court allowed in part the second applicant’s appeal on points of law. It firstly found that the lower-instance courts had erred in identifying the relevant period of solitary confinement. It noted that the second applicant had also spent a period longer than forty-five days under the punishment-cell regime after 27 June 2017. Moreover, the Supreme Court considered that a one-day break from the punishment-cell regime during which the second applicant had been held under normal prison conditions had not been sufficient to alleviate the negative effects arising from solitary confinement (the various periods of solitary confinement are listed in paragraph 31 above). The court deemed that spending some time under the regular prison regime was necessary if the mental and physical stimulation provided by prison did not offer sufficient opportunities for socialising or other appropriate activities. As a result, the Supreme Court found that the enforcement of disciplinary punishments with respect to the second applicant during the 482 days between 1 June 2016 and 26 September 2017 had been unlawful. 42.     The Supreme Court then outlined the basis for calculating compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage under section 9 of the State Liability Act (see paragraph 69 below). It observed that the courts had a wide margin of discretion when awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The amount of compensation was to be set by the courts, who had to take into account, inter alia , the importance of the violated right, all the established circumstances in which the damage in question was caused, and the gravity of the interference in question. Moreover, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights had to be taken into consideration when setting the amount of compensation. The Supreme Court noted that in Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.) nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020), the Court had considered reasonable and proportionate compensation awarded by a national court that had amounted to approximately 30% of the award made by the Court. 43.     When assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Supreme Court observed that the second applicant had been detained in a regular cell, that he had been under constant medical supervision and that the solitary confinement had not appeared to have seriously impacted his health. Moreover, the second applicant had had no compelling reasons to refuse to work. He had nevertheless decided to do so, even though he had been aware that, in line with the normal practice followed by the prison, he would be placed in a punishment cell for this violation. 44.     The Supreme Court emphasised that refusal to work in prison was not to be regarded as an insignificant violation. A prisoner had a duty to work, in the interests of attaining the aims of the sentence of imprisonment. Working in prison helped a person to maintain or develop the habit of working and coping independently. Ultimately, this helped to guide a person towards law-abiding behaviour. It was also significant that from the remuneration received for their work a prisoner could provide compensation for the damage caused by his criminal offence and accumulate money that would cover his initial expenses upon release and help to alleviate the risk of his committing new criminal offences. 45.     Taking all the aforementioned elements into account, the Supreme Court considered that the second applicant should be awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of the 482 days that he had spent in solitary confinement. Conditions of the applicants’ solitary confinement 46 .     The overall conditions of the punishment-cell regime are set out by the relevant provisions of the Imprisonment Act and Regulations no. 72 of the Minister of Justice on the Internal Prison Rules ( Vangla sisekorraeeskiri   – see paragraphs 63-68 and 70 below). 47 .     Both applicants served their disciplinary punishments in a regular prison cell, albeit under the punishment-cell regime. As part of that regime, their bedding was removed from the cell during the daytime. They were given prison clothing and they were not allowed to keep personal items other than those allowed under the Internal Prison Rules (see paragraph 70 below). 48 .     The cells in which the applicants served their disciplinary punishments measured approximately 9.9 square metres and were equipped with a shower and a toilet. The applicants could listen to a built-in radio and have access to newspapers and religious literature (the second applicant also had access to educational literature). If needed, they could have online access to all the domestic legislation in a separate computer room, and were able to take daily one-hour outdoor walks. Neither of the applicants have raised complaints regarding aspects of their living conditions, such as the quality of lighting, ventilation or heating. 49.     Under domestic law the applicants were not allowed to receive either short or long-term visits while being held under the punishment-cell regime. However, such visits were allowed during the breaks between the different periods that they spent confined to the punishment-cell regime. 50 .     The applicants were able to make telephone calls at least once a week. Written correspondence was authorised without any restrictions, and the applicants made active use of it to communicate either with other prisoners or with persons at liberty. 51 .     Meals were distributed three times a day, and mail was collected once a day. Specific circumstances of the first applicant 52 .     During the period in question the first applicant participated in social programmes entitled “Training on replacing aggressiveness” (eighteen meetings between 29 July 2015 and 2 October 2015), “Lifestyle training” (seven meetings between 24 April and 5 June 2017) and “Development of social skills” (eight meetings between 29 September and 27 October 2017). 53 .     In addition, he had numerous conversations (approximately thirty during the period from 27 June 2015 until 6 December 2017) with an “inspector/contact person” ( inspektor-kontaktisik ) and a criminal probation officer ( kriminaalhooldusametnik ), two conversations with a psychologist (on 6 November 2015 and 6 June 2016) and one with a chaplain regarding various topics concerning his behaviour, attitudes, and awareness. Within the context of those conversations, he was provided with various books to read. The psychologist noted in the record that she made of the first conversation that the applicant had expressed the wish to be left in peace to mind his own business. Following the second conversation the psychologist recorded that the applicant had been emotionally stable, with an adequate understanding of the reality of his situation and had appeared to have adapted to the punishment-cell regime. 54 .     It appears (see paragraph 14 above) that during the period between 27   June 2015 and 10 May 2016 the applicant applied for permission to receive three short visits (all of which the prison authorised), and that two of them took place. 55 .     He was able to make telephone calls at least once a week. Between 27   June 2015 and 6 June 2018 the applicant made some 750 calls from prison, including over 150 telephone calls between 20 May 2016 and 6 December 2017. 56 .     It appears from the records submitted by the first applicant that during the period from 27 June 2015 until 6 December 2017 he had attended approximately 180 medical consultations of various natures. He was at times also provided with an exercise mat in his cell. 57 .     Besides being subjected to disciplinary punishments, the first applicant was also placed in a locked isolation cell between 23 September 2015 and 26 October 2015 (see paragraphs 6-7 above). This regime also demanded that he stay in his cell, apart from taking a daily one-hour walk outdoors (if he chose to do so). Unlike the punishment-cell regime, during the period in which the applicant was subjected to the locked isolation-cell regime his bedding was not removed during the day, and he was allowed to wear his own clothes, have personal items in the cell and receive visits. The selection of literature in the cell was not limited (he was able to order other books) and the applicant was able to buy items from the prison shop. Specific circumstances of the second applicant 58 .     The second applicant took part in Estonian-language courses, which partially overlapped with the periods that he spent under the punishment-cell regime. The courses took place three times a week (each lesson lasted for three hours) from 3 May until 11 September 2016 and from 27 January until 18 May 2017. 59 .     From 1 June 2016 until 26 September 2017 he had fifteen meetings with the inspector/contact person. While some meetings were held for the purpose of informing the second applicant of certain modifications to prison rules, other conversations concerned the second applicant’s duty to work, the possibility of engaging in the educational activities, and life after imprisonment. According to the records of those meetings the second applicant expressed his refusal on principle to working in prison because he considered it to be demeaning. It appears that during the period in question he was on one occasion (on 4 April 2017) offered a consultation with a psychologist, which he refused. He later requested a consultation with a psychiatrist, which took place on 17 August 2017. He was diagnosed with “unspecified severe stress reaction” and was prescribed medication. Shortly thereafter he decided not to follow the treatment prescribed by the psychiatrist. 60 .     During the period in question the second applicant applied for permission to receive six short visits, which the prison authorised (including two visits from his family members). However, three of those visits did not take place for reasons not attributable to the prison authorities. 61 .     Between 1 June 2016 and 26 September 2017 the second applicant made 312 telephone calls. 62 .     It appears from the medical records that during the period from 1 June 2016 until 26 September 2017 the second applicant attended approximately eighty medical consultations of various natures. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law Imprisonment Act 63 .     Section 63(1)(4) of the Imprisonment Act ( vangistusseadus ) lists the following possible disciplinary punishments: reprimand; prohibition on using a personal radio, television set or other essential electrical equipment for up to forty-five days; prohibition on receiving one short or long-term visit; removal from work for up to one month; and placement in a punishment cell for up to forty-five days. 64 .     Section 65(1) states that, as a rule, disciplinary punishments are to be enforced immediately. Section 65(2) provides that a prison officer may suspend the enforcement of a disciplinary punishment (or an aspect thereof) on condition that the prisoner does not commit another disciplinary offence during the suspension period in question. 65.     Section 65 1 (2) provides that upon being placed in a punishment cell, a prisoner is to be searched and must wear the clothing provided in the punishment cell. The personal belongings that a prisoner kept in his or her ordinary cell will be stored and returned to the prisoner after his or her release from the punishment cell. 66.     Under section 65 1 (2) a prisoner who is placed in a punishment cell does not have the right to move about within the prison area as permitted under the ordinary prison rules. However, a prisoner is allowed, at his or her request, to be in the open air for at least one hour daily. 67.     Section 69(1) provides that additional security measures may be imposed on a prisoner who systematically violates the behaviour-related requirements set out by the Imprisonment Act or the internal rules of the prison in question, damages his or her health or is likely to attempt suicide or escape, or on a prisoner who poses a threat to other persons or security in the prison. Additional security measures may also be imposed in order to prevent the commission of serious offences. Section 69(2) lists all such additional security measures that a prison may impose, including placing the prisoner in question in a locked isolation cell. Section 69(3) specifies that the application of additional security measures is to be terminated if and when the circumstances specified in section 69(1) have ceased to exist. 68 .     Section 24(4) provides that a prisoner who is placed in a punishment cell in order to serve a disciplinary punishment is not allowed to receive short visits. Section 25(3) provides the same in respect of long-term visits. State Liability Act 69 .     Section 9 of the State Liability Act ( riigivastutusseadus ) sets out the rules concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Section 9(1) provides that a person may claim financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the wrongful undermining of dignity, damage to health, deprivation of liberty, a breach of the inviolability of a person’s home or private life or of the confidentiality of their correspondence, or the defamation of a person’s honour or good name. Section 9(2) adds that non-pecuniary damage will be compensated for in proportion to the gravity of the violation, taking into account the form and gravity of the fault in question ( süü vorm ja raskus ). Regulations no. 72 of the Minister of Justice on the Internal Prison Rules 70 .     Regulation 60 of Regulations no. 72 of the Minister of Justice on the Internal Prison Rules ( vangla sisekorraeeskiri ) provides that a prisoner may have the following items while detained in a punishment cell: Holy Scripture ( pühakiri ), copies of legal instruments necessary for the protection of his or her rights, a wedding ring, religious symbols, a reasonable amount of religious and educational literature, stationery, stamps, envelopes, copies of court rulings concerning him or her, summaries of statements of charges, replies received to his or her letters, one telephone card, soap, a comb, toothpaste, a toothbrush, a towel, toilet paper and sanitary pads for female prisoners. Relevant domestic case-law Concerning prisoners’ duty to work while in prison 71 .     In judgment no. 3-18-1895 of 8 December 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner’s systematic refusal to work in prison was to be regarded as a serious violation. The Supreme Court agreed with the Viru Prison authorities that a prisoner’s systematic refusal (motivated by the code followed by the criminal subculture to which he belonged) to carry out assigned work duties posed a threat to discipline and security in prison. In the Supreme Court case in question, the complainant was serving a sentence for crimes committed as a leader of a criminal organisation. The prison had reason to believe that the prisoner’s refusal to comply with the duty to work was not because of health-related impediments, but because of the beliefs commonly held within the criminal subculture to which he belonged. The prisoner’s systematic and unfounded refusal to perform cleaning work indicated that he continued to uphold the notion inherent in the criminal subculture that performing cleaning work was degrading to a person of his status. The Supreme Court considered that the enforcement of disciplinary punishment in the form of the punishment-cell regime against the defendant in the case in question had been justified and proportionate. However, the Supreme Court also emphasised that solitary confinement should not be enforced indefinitely. Concerning the consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments 72 .     Supreme Court judgment no. 3-15-3133 of 10 October 2017 concerned an action for the setting aside of several disciplinary decisions concerning the placement of a prisoner in a punishment cell for refusing to work. In its judgment, the court considered that the imposition of the punishment-cell regime had in itself been lawful and proportionate. It did not therefore set aside the disciplinary decisions in question. However, referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it considered it necessary to note that although the disciplinary punishments (which had taken the form of placing the prisoner in a punishment cell) imposed on the complainant for different violations had been lawful in themselves, their uninterrupted consecutive enforcement might not be acceptable. In the case of the prisoner, this would have meant keeping him in a punishment cell for four consecutive months. In that regard, the Supreme Court expressly stated   – referring to its earlier judgment no. 3-3-1-79-12 – that it was changing its position regarding the possibility of consecutively enforcing punishments involving placement in a punishment cell. The court specified that the phrase “as a rule” in section 65(1) of the Imprisonment Act (see paragraph 64 above) gave prison authorities some discretion. It stated that, if necessary, prisoners should be afforded a reasonable number of days under an ordinary prison regime between the enforcement of several disciplinary punishments. 73 .     In judgment no. 3-18-1895 of 8 December 2021 (already referred to in paragraph 71 above), the Supreme Court observed that the conditions of the punishment-cell regime and the level of isolation involved could vary greatly. In addition to the duration of the punishment-cell regime, other factors – such as the physical conditions of detention and the possibilities afforded to the prisoner to sustain his or her physical and mental health, (including opportunities to communicate with family and friends outside the prison and to socialise with others within the prison) – were rel