2017: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece over the detention conditions in Greek prisons

 In 2017, 6 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.

In this case, 35 applicants, who were or had been detained in Korydallos prisons, alleged that they were detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and that they did not have an effective remedy available to them in order to complain about these conditions.

The cases brought by applicants 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 26, 27, 30 and 34 requested that their appeal be withdrawn and these were therefore struck off the docket.

In the remaining appeals, the ECtHR found that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, and not finding any reason to deviate from jurisprudence on the issue, the ECtHR also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR due to the lack of an effective legal remedy to complain about these conditions.

2) February 2017 (see 1, 2) Igbo and others v. Greece (appeal no. 60042/13)

In this case, 14 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Chios, as well as the fact that they did not have an effective legal remedy to complain about these conditions.

The appeals brought by applicants 5 and 9 were dismissed due to a non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The ECtHR found that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR as well as Article 13 of the ECHR.

3) February 2017 (see 1, 2) D.M. v. Greece (appeal no. 44559/15).

The applicant alleged a violation of Articles 3 and 13 due to the conditions of his detention in Nigrita Prison.

The ECtHR, stating that it is not in a position to judge whether the applicant was detained in conditions that constitute degrading treatment (see in particular paras. 31-39), concluded that there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, but with no reason to deviate from established jurisprudence, found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

4) March 2017 (see 1, 2) Kordas v. Greece (appeal no. 51574/14).

The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Trikala prisons and that he had no effective legal remedy available to him to complain about these conditions.

The part of the appeal concerning the alleged lack of treatment of the prisoner for drug dependency was dismissed due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Therefore, the appeal was examined only in terms of the objections relating to articles 3 and 13, concerning the general conditions of the applicant’s detention.

The ECtHR, stating that the conditions described by the applicant were of a general nature that did not sufficiently explain how the applicant was personally affected, found no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. Not finding any reason to deviate from its established jurisprudence on the issue, however, the ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, as the applicant did not have at his disposal any real remedy to complain about the conditions of his detention.

5) April 2017 (see 1, 2) Cela and others v. Greece (appeal no. 10244/14).

In this case, 6 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Korydallos prisons, as well as the lack of an effective remedy that would allow them to complain about these conditions.

It is noted at this point that the appeal brought by the sixth applicant was dismissed on the basis of Article 35 para. 3 of the ECHR, as his name and personal details were not included in the list of applicants.

The ECtHR concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR as the material conditions of the applicants’ detention had subjected them to distress or suffering of an intensity that exceeded the unavoidable degree of suffering inherent in detention and, therefore, constituted degrading treatment.

In addition, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR due to the lack of a real and effective remedy to complain about the conditions of their detention.

6) April 2017 (see 1, 2) Zournatzidis and others v. Greece (appeal no. 23261/13).

In this case, 57 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Ioannina.

The appeals brought by applicants 4, 8, 15, 21, 29, 43, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57 were dismissed due to the non-exhaustion of national remedies.

The ECtHR found that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR in the remaining cases.