2016: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece over the detention conditions in Greek prisons

In 2016, 10 ECtHR decisions were issued finding that Greece had violated Articles 3 and/or 13 of the ECHR regarding the living conditions in 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 a different case regarding detention conditions for prisoners, which indicates that this problem is systemic.

In 2016, the ECtHR issued 10 decisions finding that Greece had violated Articles 3 or 13 of the ECHR, due to the detention conditions faced by prisoners.

1)January 2016 (1, 2) Kartelis and others v. Greece (appeal no. 53077/13).

In this case, 28 applicants had complained about the conditions of their detention in Diavata prison and the absence of an effective remedy allowing them to complain about these conditions. 

The applicants were housed in wards with less than 3m2 of personal space. Each ward had only one toilet, closed off with only a curtain. Because there was no hot water, the prisoners used the hot water from the radiators. The heating was inadequate and the prisoners were very cold, especially at night. The sanitary conditions were so poor that all the prisoners contracted psoriasis. The Government did not comment on the described conditions. Applicants 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-24 and 26-28 accepted the Government’s settlement proposal and the ECtHR dismissed the cases brought by these applicants.

The cases brought by applicants 14, 17 and 25 were ultimately dismissed as the court judged that the applicants had not exhausted the national remedies available to them, pursuant to Article 35.

In the case of applicant no. 10, the court concluded that Article 3 of the ECHR had been violated, given that his personal space in the cell was clearly less than 3 square meters, (which in itself constitutes a violation,). The court also found that Article 13 of the ECHR had been violated given that there was no legal remedy available to the applicant to complain about these conditions. 

2) January 2016, (see 1, 2) Patrikis and others v. Greece (appeal no. 50622/13)

In this case, 12 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Diavata prison and the absence of an effective remedy allowing them to complain about these conditions.

Applicants 8, 10, 11 accepted the Government’s settlement proposal and the ECtHR dismissed these cases.

The cases brought by applicants 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 12 were dismissed as the court judged that the applicants had not exhausted the national remedies available to them, pursuant to Article 35. The case brought by applicant 4 was dismissed due to a failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of 6 months.

The government did not comment on the conditions described.

In the remaining cases brought by applicants 1 and 5, the court concluded that the applicants were detained in conditions which amounted to degrading treatment, and which were incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, and that Article 13 of the ECHR had also been violated.

3) January 2016, (see 1, 2) Konstantinopoulos and others v. Greece (appeal no. 69781/13).

In this case, 31 applicants who had been or were prisoners in Grevena prison complained about the conditions of their detention and claimed that they did not have a real legal remedy available to them to complain about these conditions.

The cases brought by 4 of these applicants were rejected due to the non-exhaustion of national remedies pursuant to Article 35 of the ECHR.

4) February 2016, (see 1, 2) Papadakis and others v. Greece (appeal no. 34083/13).

In this case, 62 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Diavata prison, as well as the fact that they did not have an effective legal remedy available to them to complain about these conditions.

Applicants 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-23, 28-29, 31-36, 40-43, 45, 47, 49-55, 57-62 accepted the Government’s settlement proposal and their cases were therefore dismissed. The settlements agreed ranged from 3,700 to 14,000 euros, and the total amount came to over 300,000 euros.

The ECtHR dismissed the cases brought by applicants 24-26, 39, 56 as well as those brought by applicants 1, 7, 14, 21, 27 30 , 38, 44, 46 and 48.

In the remaining cases brought by applicants 9 and 37, the court concluded that there had been a violation of both Article 3 and Article 13 of the ECHR.

5) February 2016, (see 1, 2) Adiele and others v. Greece (appeal no. 29769/13)

In this case, 53 applicants complained about their detention conditions and about the absence of an effective appeal that would allow them to complain about these conditions.

The cases brought by applicants 28, 37, 38, 39 (who had already been released from prison at the date of the filing of the appeal) were dismissed due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; the case concerning applicant 19 was not examined as the applicant had died, and the case concerning applicant 18 was declared inadmissible.

In regards to the remaining cases, the ECtHR, after pointing out that the personal space of each prisoner was less than 3 square metres, a fact that the Government itself admitted and which in itself is sufficient to consider the conditions as treatment contrary to Article 3, concluded that there had been a violation of the said Article.

Not seeing any reason to deviate from established jurisprudence on the issue of the lack of an effective appeal to complain about these conditions in the Greek legal order, the ECtHR ruled that there was a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.

6) April 2016, (see 1, 2) Ali Cheema and others v. Greece (appeal no. 7059/14).

In this case, 23 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Larissa prison and claimed that they did not have an effective remedy to complain about these conditions. One case was deemed inadmissible.

The ECtHR, referring to the serious problem of overcrowding in Larissa prisons, concluded that for applicants 1-6, 8-17 and 19-23 (21 applicants) there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR due to the absence of adequate personal space.

Not seeing any reason to deviate from its standing jurisprudence on the issue of the lack of an effective recourse in the Greek legal order to complain about these conditions, the ECtHR ruled that there was also a violation of of Article 13 of the ECHR for applicants 1-17 and 19-23 (22 applicants).

7) June 2016, (see 1, 2) Mekras v. Greece (appeal no. 12863/14).

The applicant complained that his detention in Diavata prison led to an irreparable deterioration in his health, claiming that he was not given prescribed medical treatment and did not receive proper treatment or nutrition for his mobility problems.

The ECtHR recalled that Article 3 of the ECHR obliges the state to protect the physical integrity of persons deprived of their liberty by providing required medical care and medication. As the prison authorities did not comply with all the recommendations of the doctors who examined the applicant and did not provide him with all of the care and treatment recommended, they concluded that the applicant was exposed to mental and physical suffering that offended human dignity, and therefore the court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR due to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The ECtHR also ruled that there was a violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the ECHR, as the duration of the applicant’s temporary detention exceeded the reasonable period provided for by the aforementioned article due to the fact that the competent authorities that heard the applicant’s request to replace pre-trial detention with other restrictive measures never considered the alternatives.

8) June 2016, (see 1, 2) Kagia v. Greece (app. no. 26442/15).

In this case, the applicant alleged a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

The ECtHR ruled that the appeal concerning the conditions of detention must be dismissed due to non-compliance with the six-month deadline pursuant to Article 35 of the ECHR. It also ruled that there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, as the Court was not in a position to judge whether the applicant was detained under conditions that constituted degrading treatment, since the applicant did not specify in what way the shortcomings he presented had concerned him personally.

On the other hand, the ECtHR ruled that there was a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, as it found no reason to deviate from its standing jurisprudence on the issue of the issue.

9) October 2016, (see 1, 2) Kalandia v. Greece (app. no. 48684/15).

The applicant alleged violations of articles 3 (conditions of detention and insufficient care) and 13 of the ECHR, complaining about the conditions of his detention in the Prisons of Grevena, Larissa and Halicarnassus, the conditions of his transfers between them and the conditions of the hospitals. He also complained about the inadequacy of the medical care received during his detention. It is noted that the applicant was a carrier of the HIV virus, suffered from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, contracted tuberculosis resistant to treatment, displayed suicidal tendencies and suffered from severe depression and panic attacks, his health condition having worsened following his incarceration.

The ECtHR ruled that the conditions in the prisons of Halicarnassus and Larissa undoubtedly constituted treatment that exceeded the tolerable limits laid out in Article 3 of the ECHR. The court also found that the circumstances in which the applicant was transferred between prisons and hospitals had increased his suffering. For these reasons, it concluded that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, though it did not agree with the applicant’s claims that Article 3 had been violated on the basis of the medical treatment received by the applicant during his detention, nor on the basis of the conditions of his detention in the prisons of Grevena and the transfer centres.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 3, due to the length of the procedure regarding the consideration of the release request (see paras. 91-97).

10) October 2016, (see 1, 2) Alexopoulos and others v. Greece (appeal no. 41804/13).

In this case, 12 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Komotini prison as well as the lack of a real appeal process that would allow them to complain about these conditions.

The ECtHR dismissed the cases brought by applicants 1, 6, 11  and therefore considered the merits of the remaining cases, applicants 2-5 , 7-10 and 12.

The ECtHR, taking into account the cumulative effect of the detention conditions of the applicants (clearly visible overcrowding of the prison, the mould on the ceilings and walls, the lack of doors on the toilets, etc.) concluded that their detention under these conditions could be characterised as inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR and therefore found that there was a violation of that Article.

Furthermore, it ruled that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR, finding no reason to deviate from its standing jurisprudence on the issue.