CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3501/20 Allan SCHMIDT against Estonia lodged on 2 January 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application under Article 3 concerns consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments and imposition of additional security measures, with the result that the applicant spent protracted periods under a regime amounting effectively to solitary confinement. The applicant, a prisoner, has repeatedly refused to perform work duties at prison, has kept forbidden items on him and has refused to comply with orders given by prison guards. He has received several disciplinary punishments of being placed under a punishment cell regime. It appears that on one occasion additional security measures were imposed which entailed placing the applicant in a locked isolation cell. In the time period at issue in the present case (from 27 June 2015 to 10 May 2016) the applicant spent a number of periods of consecutive 60-69 days in conditions akin to solitary confinement. Between these periods he spent periods of 6 to 36 days under regular prison regime. He spent a further period – not subject of the present proceedings – from 20 May 2016 to 6 June 2018 under a punishment cell regime. The domestic courts declared this period of solitary confinement unlawful and (with respect to a part of this period) compensation proceedings are pending in domestic courts.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in view of his prolonged solitary confinement? Was the enforcement of disciplinary punishments and the imposition of the additional security measures resulting in solitary confinement accompanied by procedural safeguards guaranteeing the prisoner’s welfare and the proportionality of these measures? In particular, was the applicant’s physical and mental condition monitored and his physical or psychological capacity to deal with long-term solitary confinement assessed when the decisions to enforce the disciplinary punishments and impose additional security measures were taken? How was it decided how often and for how long the applicant could be under the regular prison regime between the periods of solitary confinement regime? (See Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, 6 March 2014; Razvyazkin v.   Russia , no. 13579/09, 3 July 2012; Csüllög v. Hungary , no.   30042/08, 7   June 2011; Onoufriou v. Cyprus , no. 24407/04, 7 January 2010).   The Government are invited to give information about the aspects of physical and social isolation that the regimes imposed on the applicant entailed.