CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35950/23 Jaroslav JURGO against Lithuania lodged on 18 September 2023 communicated on 7 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns confiscation of nutritional supplements from a prisoner and an alleged breach of his privacy when taking a urine sample. In 2012 the applicant was diagnosed as HIV-positive. On an unspecified date he was also diagnosed with hepatitis C. The applicant lodged a civil claim against the State, claiming 10,000   euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the following actions of the prison authorities: (1) While serving a prison sentence, the applicant, through a doctor’s mediation and with the prison director’s consent, had been allowed to purchase nutritional supplements necessary for his medical condition (protein). On 15   June 2021 the prison officers had carried out a search in his cell and confiscated the supplements. He had lodged eight requests with the prison authorities to have the supplements returned, but they had been returned to him only on 7   July 2021. (2) On 26   May 2021 the applicant had been requested to give a urine sample for a drug test. He had undergone a body search beforehand, but the authorities had demanded that the door be left open and observed him while he was urinating for the sample. On 30   November 2022 the Regional District Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s civil claim. The court found that the nutritional supplements had been confiscated in order to investigate the lawfulness of their acquisition. It acknowledged that the authorities had not returned them to the applicant with sufficient promptness but held that there were no grounds to find that he had experienced intensive suffering which would warrant monetary compensation. On 14   June 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that conclusion. It also found that the applicant’s privacy while giving the urine sample for the drug test had not been ensured, since it was not clear why, despite a full body search performed beforehand, he had still been observed while urinating. However, the Supreme Administrative Court held that those violations could not be regarded as torture within the meaning of the Convention. It held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction and made no monetary award. The applicant complains about the absence of a monetary compensation. He submits that because of his illnesses and the restricted possibilities to purchase certain food products in prison, he needed protein supplements, therefore, they were of essential importance for his health. He also states that he was humiliated when his urine sample was taken and that he could not refuse to undergo that procedure because of fear of punishment. He relies on Article   3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   8 of the Convention on account of the fact that from 15   June to 7 July 2021 nutritional supplements were taken away from him (see, mutatis mutandis , Blokhin v.   Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-37, 23   March 2016, and the cases cited therein)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   8 of the Convention on account of the fact that, when he was providing a urine sample for a drug test, the prison officials demanded that the door be left open and observed him (see, mutatis mutandis , Wainwright v. the United Kingdom , no.   12350/04, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2006-X, and the cases cited therein)?