CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .s13D05820 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFF81EB2B { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8611E46E { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s3F8B77BC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sEAF1EF9B { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s83BD7893 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC7F8B648 { width:2.63pt; display:inline-block } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s53E36DA2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9D73D86 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s16087E0F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle }   Communicated on 9 October 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 74452/13 Romanas DARDANSKIS against Lithuania and 17 other applications (see table appended) The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. Their details are provided in the annex. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. All the applicants have been convicted to life imprisonment (or initially to death penalty, which later was changed to life imprisonment) and serve their sentences either in Lukiškės Prison or in Pravieniškės Correctional Institution. In 2016 the applicant Mr H. Daktaras (case no.   48303/16) asked Lukiškės Prison administration to be taken to an outside hospital to a dentist, or that a dentist would come to prison, so that the applicant could have dental implants. He explained that the prison doctor could repair teeth, but he did not provide implants. The applicant stated that he was ready to pay for the services of the dentist. The prison administration refused the applicant’s request. He then lodged an appeal with the Prison Department, but was unsuccessful. By a decision of 6 February 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s appeal. Relying, inter alia , on the Court’s judgment in V.D. v. Romania (no.   7078/02, 16   February 2010), the administrative court held that Lukiškės Prison administration and the Prison Department had given only formal replies, without having examined whether the applicant’s condition required dental implants. The administrative court ordered Lukiškės Prison administration to make sure that the applicant’s medical condition was properly examined and, if necessary, to provide him with the possibility to obtain services of a doctor so that he could obtain dental implants. It transpires from the documents in the Court’s possession that Lukiškės Prison administration appealed against the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s decision. B.     Relevant law and practice as regards life sentences As regards life prisoners, the domestic law and practice is set out in detail in Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania (nos.   22662/13 and   7   others, §§ 61-110, 23   May 2017). The relevant European, international and comparative law, as well as the extracts from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reports concerning life prisoners’ situation in Lithuania, are set out in paragraphs 111-119 of the said judgment. COMPLAINTS All the applicants complain that their life sentences are not irreducible and therefore are incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant Mr Henrikas Daktaras (case no.   48303/16) also complains about lack of proper medical care in Lukiškės Prison, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. He is dissatisfied that he could not obtain dental implants inside or outside that prison, notwithstanding him being ready to bear the costs.   COMMON QUESTION In respect of each applicant, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the fact that their life sentences are not reducible (see Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania , nos.   22662/13 and 7   others, §§   180-183, 23   May 2017)? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION As regards the applicant H.   Daktaras (case no.   48303/16), has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant not being able to receive dental care (dental implants) while serving the sentence in Lukiškės Prison (see Xiros v. Greece , no.   1033/07, §§   73,   75   and 76, 9   September 2010; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia , no.   34334/04, §§   102-104, 114 and 115, 15 June 2010, and Bagdonavičius v.   Lithuania , no. 41252/12, §§ 69-75, 19 April 2016)?   The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of the administrative case regarding the applicant’s dental care and whether Lukiškės Prison administration had complied with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s ruling of 6   February 2017.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Complaints to be communicated   74452/13 22/11/2013 Romanas DARDANSKIS 23/06/1968 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   583/14 25/12/2013 Aleksandr MARKIN 27/07/1980 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   23542/14 17/03/2014 Ričardas BARATINSKAS 23/09/1964 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   24971/14 20/03/2014 Viktor SMIRNOV 13/11/1968 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   32519/14   15/04/2014 Vygantas RAILA 27/02/1968 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   38916/14 19/05/2014 Rolandas PALUKAITIS 13/04/1973 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės   Andrejus VAVILOVAS 1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   46591/14 17/06/2014 Gintaras RAILA 22/01/1966 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės   Ričardas MIRONOVAS 1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   46640/14 17/06/2014 Audrius SINKEVIČIUS 19/03/1978 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   49765/14 01/07/2014 Darius AMBRASAS 08/01/1973 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   60038/14 08/08/2014 Andrej PAVLOV 02/06/1977 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   14696/15 19/03/2015 Rimas BRAŽINSKAS 23/06/1972 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   16039/15 24/03/2015 Ričardas KARENDA 09/08/1974 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   19405/15 26/03/2015 Jevgenij PAVLOV 04/05/1974 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   23905/15 11/05/2015 Rolandas SVIRBUTAVIČIUS 01/02/1971 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   24187/15 06/05/2015 Eugenijus ŠEDYS 29/07/1960 Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   48303/16 12/08/2016 Henrikas DAKTARAS 12/12/1957 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius   Vytautas SIRVYDIS 1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention   2. Article 3 – lack of appropriate health care in prison   51216/16 16/08/2016 Audrius ANDRUŠAITIS 09/03/1968 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention     33339/17 24/04/2017 Algimantas VERTELKA 13/02/1961 Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius     1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention