CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s15362AD6 { text-indent:14.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sACBB7403 { width:6.79pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 11 October 2017   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 22357/15 and 234/15 Marius NANARTONIS against Lithuania and Aidas KAZLAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 27 April 2015 and 9 December 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the cases      Application no. 22357/15 was lodged on 27   April   2015 by Marius   Nanartonis, who was born on 24 January   1975 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility. 1.     Proceedings regarding the applicant’s conditions of detention in Prison Hospital The applicant was confined to Prison Hospital from 22 March to 4   April 2010, from 21 to 27 September 2011, from 25   February to 4   March 2011 and from 17 to 24   January   2014. On 17 September 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint, before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, alleging overcrowding and other inadequate sanitary conditions at the hospital. He subsequently provided a specified complaint. On 19 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court applied the three-year statutory time-limit to part of the applicant’s complaint. It held that the applicant had been placed in overcrowded wards for fifteen days and awarded him 100 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 29 euros (EUR)) in compensation for fifteen days in overcrowded wards for the periods from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17 until 24 January 2014.     The applicant appealed, and on 9 December 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. 2.     Proceedings regarding the request for a portable digital music (MP3) player On 15 July 2013 the applicant asked the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive a portable digital music (MP3) player from a person who was not his relative. On 17 July 2013 his request was refused. The applicant complained to the Prison Department, which replied in August that the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility had acted in accordance with domestic law. On 20 August 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court regarding the refusal of the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive an MP3 player from someone to whom he was not related. He asked the court to oblige the Correctional Facility administration to issue him with permission to receive equipment and other items from acquaintances because his relatives were not visiting him, and to award him compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. On 13 January 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant could receive an MP3 player from his spouse, partner or close relatives. However, as the person who had proposed to bring him the player was not within the circle of such persons, the refusal of the Correctional Facility administration was lawful. The court had no doubts about the provisions of domestic law and observed that they were designed to motivate inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties. The applicant’s complaint was therefore dismissed. The applicant appealed, and on 30 October 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. The court held that the applicant had not denied that he had close relatives, but had simply claimed that they were not visiting him. The applicant was placed in the same position as other inmates. His right to have an MP3 player had not been denied, as he could purchase one. It was not prohibited for persons other than close relatives to give money to convicted inmates, thus the applicant could receive the money to buy one.        Application no. 234/15 was lodged on 9   December   2014 by Aidas   Kazlauskas, who was born on 21   September   1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison . In February 2014 the applicant lodged a petition with the Parliamentary Commission on Petitions (“the Commission”), requesting a change in the relevant provision of the Code for the Execution of Sentences in order for it to read that electronic items could be given to inmates by their friends and acquaintances as well as their spouses, partners and close relatives. In March 2014 the Commission decided not to examine the applicant’s petition as it was not clear enough. In March 2014 the applicant lodged a new petition with the Commission. In April 2014 the Commission informed the applicant that his petition would be examined. In June 2014 the Commission examined the applicant’s petition and decided to reject it. The applicant’s proposal was to amend Article   96   §   1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences so that it allowed inmates to receive electronic items from their acquaintances or friends, as well as from their spouses, partners or close relatives. The Commission held that the existing regulation was aimed at preventing inmates from receiving items acquired by criminal methods, for example, by their accomplices. In June 2014 the Lithuanian Parliament dismissed the applicant’s proposal. The applicant did not specify to the Court whether he had an acquaintance or a friend who was willing to give him electronic items. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards conditions of detention, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and   6   others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015). At the material time, Article 96 § 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provided that convicted inmates (except for inmates placed in a disciplinary regime) were allowed to use television sets, computers, video and portable digital music players, radio sets, computer-game devices and other items listed in the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities. Those items could be purchased with the inmates’ own money or could be given to them by their spouses, partners or close relatives. From 23 June 2015, Article 96 § 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provides that convicted inmates (except for those placed in a disciplinary regime or confined to cells) are allowed to use electronic devices and other items listed in the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities. Those items can be purchased with the convicted inmates’ own money or given to them. At the material time, point 173 of the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities provided that convicted inmates (except for inmates placed in a disciplinary regime) were allowed to use the items they had purchased or received: radios, shavers, video players, computer-game devices, portable digital music players, television sets with screens up to 51 centimetres, computers, water heaters, hair dryers, electric kettles, toasters, sandwich makers, musical instruments, CDs and other data-storage devices with up to 4   GB of capacity, lamps, bedding (except for blankets, mattresses and pillows) if the convicted inmate had refused in writing to accept the bedding attributed to him. On 29 March 2016 the Internal Rules of Correctional Facilities were amended and point 173 was removed. Article 3.135 of the Civil Code defines close relatives as persons related by direct consanguinity up to the second degree (parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren) and persons related by collateral consanguinity within the second degree (siblings). COMPLAINTS 1.     The first applicant (application no. 22537/15) complains under Article   3 of the Convention of the degrading conditions in which he was detained in Prison Hospital. 2.     The first applicant also complains, under Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, of the authorities’ refusal to allow him to receive a portable digital music (MP3) player from a person other than his spouse, partner or close relative. 3.     The second applicant (application no. 234/15) complains, under Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that he was unable to receive electronic devices from friends or acquaintances.   common QUESTIONS 1.     Have the authorities breached the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, by refusing to allow them to receive a portable digital music (MP3) player (see, mutatis mutandis, Laduna v.   Slovakia , no. 31827/02, § 53, ECHR 2011)?   2.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to respect for their private life, on account of the fact that the authorities refused to allow them to receive MP3 players from a person other than their spouse, partner or close relative, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to provide information about the current domestic regulations, specifically the internal rules of correctional facilities and remand prisons regarding inmates’ right to receive electronic devices and the circle of persons allowed to give such devices to inmates. Separate QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF application No.   22357/15 1.     Can the applicant still be considered a victim of a violation of Article   3 of the Convention in the light of the domestic courts’ decisions finding violations of his rights (see Mironovas and Others v.   Lithuania , nos.   40828/12, and 6 others, §§ 84-85 and 96, 8 December 2015) and awarding him compensation?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17   until 24 January 2014 (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR   2016)? SEPARATE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION N o.   234/15 Can the applicant be considered a victim of a violation of Article 8, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see Burden v. the United Kingdom   [GC], no.   13378/05, §   33, ECHR   2008)?