CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61492/21 J.J. against Greece lodged on 27 January 2022 communicated on 17 March 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in Domokos Prison. The applicant is a national of Iraq, of Kurdish ethnic origin and a Muslim, who had served time in several prison institutions in Greece before he was transferred to Domokos Prison on 30 September 2021. There he was initially detained in a wing hosting inmates of Muslim faith. However, following a series of events that allegedly included solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure, a hunger strike and placement in a different wing hosting inmates of Christian faith and of Russian ethnic origin, the applicant was involved in a violent inter-prisoner incident on 18   December 2021. He was allegedly beaten by a group of Russian Christian inmates, which led to his hospitalisation at the Lamia hospital with injuries in his ear and eye. On 19 December 2021 the applicant’s representative contacted the prison authorities and requested an inquiry into the events as well as that the applicant’s criminal complaint be forwarded to the prosecuting authorities. In addition, the applicant’s representative asked that: any audiovisual material recording the attack be preserved and made available to her; the applicant’s casefile be updated with all documents and information substantiating his alleged victimisation in the previous prisons where he had been detained; the number of the applicant’s casefile, along with copies of the documents included therein, be provided to her; a forensic medical examination be carried out on the applicant and a medical expert of his choice be appointed; and that the applicant be placed in a different prison wing. However, these requests allegedly remained without response from the prison authorities. Meanwhile, the applicant had lodged on 14 December 2021 a request for a transfer to Malandrino Prison, which was forwarded to the Central Transfers Committee of the Ministry of Civil Protection on 20 December 2021. On the same date, the applicant was allegedly placed back in the prison wing where he had been detained before. On 22 December 2021 the applicant submitted a request for interim measures before the Court requesting that he immediately be placed in a wing where inmates of Muslim faith were detained, that his life and bodily integrity in detention be ensured and that the violent incident against him be promptly and thoroughly investigated. After an initial adjournment of the decision, the Government submitted several documents whereby they informed the Court that disciplinary measures had been imposed on an inmate on 23   December 2021 for use of physical violence against the applicant, that the applicant’s health condition had improved and that the applicant had been placed in a different prison wing on 29 December 2021 where a large number of co ‑ detainees were co-religionists and where he was under the appropriate medical supervision. On 3 January 2022 the applicant’s request for interim measures was eventually refused by the Court. The applicant alleges that the prison authorities knew that he risked being subjected to attacks by his fellow inmates in the prison wing where he was detained but neither took steps to eliminate those risks nor intervened during the incident. He further alleges ineffective investigation of the attack against him, referring in both respects to Article 2 of the Convention. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant further complains of his overall conditions of detention in Domokos Prison as well as of the cumulative effect of overcrowding, placement in a prison wing together with (before the incident) or close to (after the incident) inmates who could pose a threat to him, the mental anxiety caused by such a threat and the lack of a common language with his fellow inmates in both wings. Under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the applicant claims that there is no effective remedy at his disposal to complain of the attack against him, on account of the alleged ineffective investigation and alleged lack of response to his criminal complaint by the competent authorities, as well as to complain of his conditions of detention. Under Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the inquiry into the attack against him failed to consider any religious and/or racial undertones. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb on account of failure of the domestic prison authorities to consider the applicant’s vulnerability and to take all positive measures necessary to eliminate or minimise the risks of his victimisation while in detention (see Gjini v. Serbia , no. 1128/16, §§ 84-88, 15 January 2019; D.F. v.   Latvia , no. 11160/07, §§ 81-95, 29 October 2013; Stasi v.   France , no.   25001/07, §§ 90-101, 20 October 2011; and Premininy v.   Russia , no.   44973/04, §§ 84-91, 10 February 2011)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural limb on account of ineffective investigation by the domestic authorities of the incident against the applicant (see Gjini , cited above, §§   96 ‑ 103, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no.   46477/99, §§ 69-74, ECHR 2002-II)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in Domokos Prison and, especially, on account of the cumulative effect of those conditions (see, for general principles, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 101, 121, 20   October 2016, and Ribár v. Slovakia , no. 56545/21, § 98, 12 December 2024)?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention on account of lack of an effective remedy that would allow the applicant to put forth his complaints and arguments before the domestic authorities? In this regard, have the domestic remedies to which the applicant has had recourse been properly exhausted?   5.     Has there been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention on account of failure of the domestic authorities to consider potential religious and racial undertones of the incident against the applicant (see Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece , no. 15250/02, § 65, ECHR   2005 ‑ XIII (extracts))?