CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2025

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38935/23 Filip-Artur HIIENURM against Estonia lodged on 8 October 2023 communicated on 10 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the near-simultaneous use of pepper spray and an electroshock weapon (hereinafter also referred to as “special equipment”) against the applicant in response to his allegedly aggressive behaviour. It also concerns the subsequent application of additional security measures against the applicant which resulted in him spending three months in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. The applicant is a prisoner. After his cellmate had injured himself and had been bleeding, the applicant on the one hand seemed to demand for medical aid to come and assist his cellmate. On the other hand, it appears that when prison officers (after some discussion and physical confrontation with the applicant through the hatch in the cell door) tried to enter the cell the applicant refused to follow orders to either have his hands cuffed or to move away from the cell door so that the prison officers could enter. When three prison officers (being dressed in protective gear, wearing helmets and using a protective shield) eventually opened the door to enter the cell, they were under impression that the applicant would throw (or indeed threw) a metal cup at them, and would potentially also throw a basin containing his cellmate’s blood towards them. In reaction to that (perceived) risk, one of the three prison officers deployed pepper spray against the applicant and the other one practically simultaneously used an electroshock weapon against him. The prison officers subsequently placed the applicant on the ground and handcuffed him. As a result of the above-described incident, the applicant was given a disciplinary punishment of having to spend five days in the punishment cell. Furthermore, in view of the given incident, the applicant’s overall criminal past, his history of aggressive behaviour and his emotional characteristics certain additional security measures ( “täiendavad julgeolekuabinõud” ) were imposed on him. The application of these measures (in particular placement in a locked isolation cell; other measures included restriction of freedom of movement and communication inside the prison, ban on using prison’s sports facilities, and use of handcuffs outside the cell) meant that the applicant was held in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. These security measures were reviewed after a month and after two months (when the use of handcuffs was stopped). After three months, the prison authorities decided to lift all the additional security measures. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prison officers in relation to the use of pepper spray and electroshock weapon but did not challenge the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings at the court. He also lodged claim for compensation in relation to the use of the special equipment against him and the application of additional security measures, but the domestic courts dismissed it. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the use of pepper spray and an electroshock weapon against him as well as about subjecting him to additional security measures. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, for all aspects of his complaint?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of the substantive aspect of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the use of an electroshock weapon and pepper spray against him (see El-Asmar v. Denmark , no. 27753/19, §§ 75-80, 3 October 2023; Tali v.   Estonia , no.   66393/10, § 78, 13 February 2014; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 51284/09, §§ 76-77, 30 September 2014; Kanciał v.   Poland , no. 37023/13, §§ 78-80, 23 May 2019; see also Sokolovas v.   Lithuania [Committee], no. 10049/20, §§ 18-21, 28 June 2022)?   3.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the application of additional security measures against him and the subsequent prolongation of these measures (see Onoufriou v. Cyprus , no. 24407/04, § 70, 7 January 2010; Csüllög v. Hungary , no. 30042/08, § 31, 7 June 2011; compare and contrast A.T. v. Estonia (no. 2) , no. 70465/14, §§ 74-86, 13 November 2018)?