ARTICLES
2020: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece over the detention conditions in Greek prisons
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the ECHR) recognizes the absolute right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and thus enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. Article 13 establishes the right of anyone whose rights under the ECHR have been violated to have access to an effective remedy before national authorities, and imposes an obligation on the State to provide appropriate remedies for this purpose.
The imposition of a custodial sentence serves specific purposes (prevention, reintegration of the individual) and its imposition results in the deprivation of the right to liberty. This limitation is expected to affect in some way the other rights of the individual.
However, in order for the conditions of detention to comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the ECHR, the authorities must ensure that a person is detained in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of a custodial sentence or other type of detention measure do not subject the person concerned to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, this person’s health and wellbeing are adequately secured (see more in 1, 2).
The situation in Greek prisons is an issue that has been repeatedly commented on by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) which has concluded that far too many prisoners in Greece continue to be held in conditions which represent an affront to their human dignity (see 1, 2, 3). The Greek Ombudsman has also spoken about the chronic problems of the Greek prison system (see this Report for 2020-2021).
Overcrowding, inadequate buildings and medical care, operational deficiencies, unsuitable living conditions and generally inadequate facilities have on several occasions been the reasons cited by the ECtHR for finding that Greece had violated Article 3 of the ECHR, as the conditions have been judged to constitute degrading treatment. Exceedingly small personal and collective spaces, the absence of privacy, the lack of natural lighting, ventilation and heating, failure to comply with basic health requirements, the absence of exercise activities, work or education for the prisoners are some of the other issues that have been raised. It is noted at this point that when prison overcrowding reaches a certain point and the personal space corresponding to each prisoner is below 3 sq.m. this fact alone may be sufficient for the ECtHR to conclude that the applicant’s conditions of detention constitute treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the lack of a real and effective remedy in national law that allows individuals to complain about the conditions in which they are detained has also been repeatedly condemned by the ECtHR as a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.
It is also worth mentioning that Greece is under enhanced surveillance in the context of different cases regarding detention conditions for prisoners, which indicates that this problem is systemic.
In 2020, the ECtHR issued 4 decisions finding that Greece had violated Articles 3 or 13 of the ECHR, due to the detention conditions faced by prisoners.
In this case, 6 applicants had complained about: a) the general conditions of their detention in the women’s prison of Thebes and the lack of care for their health condition; b) the subjection to discriminatory treatment (“ghettoisation and stigmatisation”) because they were HIV positive; and c) the absence in national law of an effective remedy through which they could claim a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
The ECtHR concluded that there was no violation of Article 3 and/or Article 14 of the ECHR, noting that the general conditions of detention in Thebes prison were satisfactory, in that personal space was sufficient, and that neither the detainees’ lives nor their health were endangered throughout their detention as the authorities did not breach their obligation to provide them with medical assistance in accordance with the requirements of their state of health.
However the Court found no reason to deviate from past judgements in relation to Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, due to the absence in national law of a real and effective remedy allowing the applicants to complain about the conditions of their detention.
In this case, the ECtHR held that there was a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR, due to the applicants’ conditions of detention at Malandrinos Prison and the lack of any effective remedy enabling them to complain about their conditions of detention (see more on that judgment here).
In this case, which arose from 3 appeals that were heard together, the applicants complained about the conditions of detention in Larissa prison (see in particular para. 6-13, where reference is made to overcrowding in the prison and poor sanitary conditions,) and the absence of an effective remedy enabling them to complain of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Court concluded that as regards all three applicants there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, noting that the applicants did not specify how they were personally affected by the problems in Larissa prison, with the exception of certain periods of time for one of the applicants where a violation of Article 3 was found, as the applicant’s personal space during these periods was less than 3 square metres. However the Court found that there was a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR for all three applicants since, as the ECtHR has repeatedly held in the past, there is no real and effective remedy in national law enabling the applicants to complain about the conditions of their detention.
In this case, the nine applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in the women’s prison of Thebes (see paragraphs 16-24 and 35-40) and the lack of an effective remedy through which they could complain of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
The ECtHR, ruling on the merits of the case for 7 of the 9 applicants, concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, as the general conditions of detention in Thebes prison were satisfactory and the authorities had not breached their obligation to provide the applicants with medical treatment in accordance with the requirements of their state of health. However, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR, as, as the ECtHR has repeatedly held in the past, there was no real and effective remedy in domestic law enabling the applicants to complain about their conditions of detention.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
