CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 46581/22 Sokratis SARRIS against Greece and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 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 against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, 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 K. Tsitselikis and Mr A. Spathis, two lawyers practising in Thessaloniki. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Greek Government (“the Government”). In all the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention. The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention at the Korydallos Prison. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, provided that the applicants “have not been awarded any compensation for the same reason under Article 6A of the [Greek] Penitentiary Code or any other remedy, taking into consideration the duration of their detention in Korydallos I Detention Facility in such conditions”. They invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications in the part covered by the Government’s declarations as accepted by the applicants. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications in that part out of the Court’s list. As regards the remaining complaints raised by the applicants, taking into account the facts of the case, the Government’s declarations and the Court’s decision to strike out the part of the applications relating to the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present applications has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under Article 13 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the part of the applications as covered by the Government’s declarations and accepted by the applicants, out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention; Decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining part of the applications. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 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 Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     46581/22 27/09/2022 Sokratis SARRIS 1977   Tsitselikis Konstantinos Thessaloniki   Spathis Antonios Thessaloniki   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 27/11/2025 04/12/2025 7,700     46582/22 27/09/2022 Panagiotis NEOFOTISTOS 1965   Tsitselikis Konstantinos Thessaloniki   Spathis Antonios Thessaloniki   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 27/11/2025 04/12/2025 6,100     46583/22 27/09/2022 Dimitrios SOULTOS 1997   Tsitselikis Konstantinos Thessaloniki   Spathis Antonios Thessaloniki Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   27/11/2025 04/12/2025 3,700     46584/22 27/09/2022 Stamatis SOULTOS 1995   Tsitselikis Konstantinos Thessaloniki   Spathis Antonios Thessaloniki   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 27/11/2025 04/12/2025 3,700     46595/22 27/09/2022 Asimakis TRIANTAFYLLOU 1981   Tsitselikis Konstantinos Thessaloniki   Spathis Antonios Thessaloniki   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 27/11/2025 04/12/2025 5,600   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.