CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       FIRST SECTION Application no. 429/12 Terki TUNIS against Estonia lodged on 27 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Terki Tunis, is an Estonian national, who was born in 1972. He is detained in Viru Prison. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Namm, a lawyer practising in Rakvere. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. From 18 July 2006 to 2 June 2009 the applicant was detained in Tallinn Prison pending his trial. He stayed in cell no. 443 in the second bloc of the remand section of the prison throughout the period of his detention in Tallinn. It appears that he was subsequently transferred to Viru Prison. Cell no. 443 measured 15 square metres. It accommodated six detainees together with the applicant. There was a toilet in the cell and it was equipped with bunk beds, a table and benches which left about 6.5 square metres of usable floor area in the cell. The detainees were locked in the cell day and night except for one daily hour of outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard measured 2.7 by 4.7   metres and was used together with other detainees. It had a concrete floor which could be wet or snowy according to the weather conditions and had no benches or any sports equipment. Persons in pre-trial detention, like the applicant, had no access to gym. The applicant complained of pain in his neck and was hospitalised in the prison’s hospital from 27 October to 10 November 2008. He was consulted by a neurologist and a rehabilitation medicine specialist who taught him individual relaxation, stretching and muscle strength exercises as well as ergonomic positions and activities. On 15 January 2009 the applicant filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice about being kept in conditions that damaged his health and lack of possibility to do exercises recommended by the doctor. On 27 March 2009 the Ministry of Justice dismissed his complaint. The applicant further complained to the Tallinn Administrative Court. By a judgment of 15 September 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. It referred, inter alia , to an earlier administrative court case brought by the applicant where a prison doctor had stated that the applicant could also do the exercises recommended to him in his cell or in the outdoor exercise yard. The Administrative Court noted that in the meantime the applicant had again undergone medical examination but the use of gym or special equipment had not been prescribed to him by the doctors. The Administrative Court considered that the applicant should have been able to do the exercises within the applicable prison regime. The size of the applicant’s cell – 2.5 square metres per prisoner – had been in line with the Prisons’ Internal Rules enacted by the Minister of Justice. On 25 March 2011 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 15 June 2011 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the applicant’s appeal. The copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in the file bears a “true copy” stamp dated 27 June 2011 and according to the applicant it was served on him on the following day COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about detention in overcrowded conditions and lack of sufficient rehabilitation treatment as a result of which his health condition deteriorated.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 145, 10 January 2012, with further references)?