CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15574/17 Derfim BICACU against Greece and 12 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   December 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr   C.   Lampakis and Ms I. Pipertzi, two lawyers practising in Thessaloniki. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain thereof were communicated to the Greek Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the Kassandra Agricultural Prison In the present applications, having examined all the material before it and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the applicants’ conditions of detention in the Kassandra Agricultural Prison and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard are inadmissible for the reasons stated below. It is clear from the relevant legislative framework and the case files that the Kassandra Prison, as an agricultural prison, had a purpose and organisation that were very different from those of other penitentiary establishments and that prisoners were separated in the buildings according to their different statuses. In particular, the Court reiterates its findings in Zografos and Others v. Greece ([Committee] (dec.), no. 29744/13, §§ 111 ‑ 27, 19 May 2022) as regards the conditions in the “closed spaces”. The Court further reiterates its findings regarding the “open spaces” where prisoners were held in an open prison and the semi-liberty regime (see Zografos and Others , cited above, §§ 91-107). These prisoners enjoyed considerable freedom of movement when they worked during the day outside their dormitories. Prisoners in open facilities who worked under supervision were clearly distinct from those in closed prisons who were confined to cells and whose opportunities to walk in the prison yard were limited. Prisoners on work release who resided in separate houses enjoyed considerable autonomy, which determined their status, and freedom of movement over a very large area. Having regard to all the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court notes that the applicants failed to substantiate their allegations or contest the Government’s arguments that these facilities were not overcrowded and the conditions in them did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. Therefore, the Court finds that it cannot establish that the applicants suffered in these prison facilities from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016) nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicants complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal (dec.) no.5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020). Therefore, the Court does not find a reason to depart from its earlier findings in Zografos and Others (cited above, §§ 91-127) and therefore cannot conclude that the applicants’ conditions of detention were contrary to the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning their conditions of detention in the Kassandra Agricultural Prison (see the appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their conditions of detention in the Kassandra Agricultural Prison. The complaints under Article 3 have been declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded and cannot be regarded as “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13. Therefore, the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 related to the detention in the Kassandra Agricultural Prison are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the applicants’ detention in prisons prior to their transfer to the Kassandra Agricultural Prison In all the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention, regarding their conditions of detention in various prisons prior to their transfer to the Kassandra Agricultural Prison. The Court reiterates that a period of detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” if the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions. The applicant’s release or transfer to a different type of detention regime, either within or outside the facility, would put an end to the “continuing situation” (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012). The transfer of a detainee from one place of detention to another, in principle, interrupts the continuity of the detention with respect to its conditions, and the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention begins to run from the date of the transfer to the new place of detention (see Kanakis v. Greece (no. 2) , no. 40146/11, § 92, 12 December 2013, Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, § 83, 29 January 2009; and Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 11982/02, § 96, 6 December 2007). However, if the conditions of detention in the new prison are essentially the same as those in the previous one, the Court considers that there is a continuing situation (see Bouros and Others v. Greece , nos. 51653/12 and 4   others, §§ 64-70, 12 March 2015). Examining the present cases in the light of the above principles, the   six-month period referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to be calculated separately for each detention period; on each occasion starting to run on the date that followed the applicants’ transfer from one detention facility to the Kassandra Agricultural Prison where the detention conditions were substantially different and do not to raise any issues under the Convention. The Court notes that the applicants lodged their applications with the Court on the dates indicated on the appended table. It follows that the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the detention periods prior to their transfer to the Kassandra Agricultural Prison, have been introduced out of time (see Kagia v. Greece no. 26442/15, §§ 32-36, 30 June 2016) and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 January 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Facility Start and end date   Other complaints under well-established case-law     15574/17 17/02/2017     Derfim BICACU 1984   Diavata Prison 06/11/2015 to 19/02/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 19/02/2016 to 12/05/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     16792/17 21/02/2017 Christos/Nikolaos ALI/BAKOUSOGLOU 1970   Diavata Prison 24/07/2014 to 17/02/2015   Patras Prison 17/02/2015 to 09/10/2015   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 09/10/2015 to 01/03/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     25835/17 30/03/2017 Ioannis KOSMIDIS 1960   Diavata Prison 29/09/2015 to 16/05/2016     Kassandra Agricultural Prison 16/05/2016 to 10/04/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     27344/17 06/04/2017 Uba CHIMA 1987   Diavata Prison 10/05/2016 to 03/06/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 03/06/2016 to 02/05/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     27890/17 06/04/2017 Ali RAMANDAN OGLOU 1979   Diavata Prison 16/09/2014 to 28/07/2015   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 28/07/2015 to 11/10/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     27985/17 06/04/2017 Jura ENIDUNAIEV 1968   Diavata Prison 11/11/2015 to 16/05/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 16/05/2016 to 15/06/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     28125/17 06/04/2017 Georgios AGGELOU 1972   Diavata Prison 26/07/2016 to 03/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 03/10/2016 to 13/10/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     34011/17 03/05/2017 Pavlos MANOUKOV 1979   Korydallos Prison 12/02/2016 to 06/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 07/10/2016 to 11/08/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     34044/17 05/05/2017 Mikhail KOZLOV 1967   Grevena Prison 19/02/2016 to 07/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 07/10/2016 to 01/06/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -   34413/17 03/05/2017 Nikolaos ZORBAS 1972   Korydallos Prison 16/07/2015 to 06/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 07/10/2016 to 10/07/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -   35779/17 11/05/2017 Rahman-Abduraman ABDUL -MAMASABUDIN 1995   Korydallos Prison 15/03/2016 to 13/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 14/10/2016 to 19/12/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -   38727/17 22/05/2017 Vasilios TSIKOS 1966   Komotini Prison 04/07/2016 to 22/10/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 22/10/2016 to 20/07/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -   42577/17 07/06/2017 Daniel APPIAH 1982   Patras prison 05/08/2015 to 01/12/2016   Kassandra Agricultural Prison 09/12/2016 to 30/08/2017 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -