ARTICLES
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 a different case regarding detention conditions for prisoners, which indicates that this problem is systemic.
In 2018, the ECtHR issued 8 decisions finding that Greece had violated Articles 3 or 13 of the ECHR, due to the detention conditions faced by prisoners.
In this case, 28 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention and about the absence of an effective appeal process through which they could complain about these conditions. The cases brought by applicants 7, 12 and 19 were rejected due to the non-exhaustion of national remedies.
The ECtHR in the remaining cases concluded that there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR concerning the general conditions of detention but that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR with regard to applicant 21 and his placement in a disciplinary cell for 6 months. The court also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 in the cases brought by applicants 1-6, 8-11, 13-18 and 20-28, as the applicants had no effective remedy available to them to complain about the conditions of their detention (see paras. 87-91).
In this case, 47 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention. It is noted that the appeals brought by applicants 3, 5, 16, 23, 25, 26, 31, 35 and 39 were rejected due to the non-exhaustion of national remedies, and the case brought by the thirty-fifth appellant was withdrawn by the applicant.
Regarding the remaining cases, the ECtHR accepted the applicants’ claim that the prison in Patras that they were detained in was overcrowded and operating beyond its capacity and there was therefore a manifest lack of personal space, in violation of Article 3.
In this case, 18 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention and about the absence of an effective appeal process through which they could complain about these conditions. It is noted that all the applicants suffered from H.I.V. infection, except for applicant 3, who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The ECtHR ruled that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR due to the inadequacy of the conditions in the prison hospital in combination with the vulnerability of the applicants and the duration of their detention, as well as a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR, due to the lack of an effective remedy allowing them to complain about these conditions.
In this case 3 applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in Domokos prison (see their allegations in paras. 10-17) and about the absence of a real and effective remedy that would allow them to complain about these conditions. The case brought by the third appellant was withdrawn by the applicant.
The ECtHR concluded that there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR for the remaining two applicants (see paras. 53-59), but finding no reason to deviate from jurisprudence on the issue of Article 13 of the ECHR, found a violation of the said article due to the lack of an effective remedy to complain about detention conditions.
In this case the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Diavata prison and about the absence of a real and effective recourse under national law that would allow him to complain about these conditions.
The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 due to the conditions described in Diavata prison (overcrowding, lack of adequate heating and cleanliness, etc.), and finding no reason to deviate from jurisprudence also found that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.
In this case the applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in the prison of Corfu and about the absence of a real and effective recourse under national law allowing them to complain about these conditions.
The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR for 12 applicants due to a personal space per prisoner smaller than 3 sq.m. In addition, finding no reason to deviate from its established jurisprudence, the court also found that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR for all (22) applicants.
In this case the applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in the prisons of Patras and Diavata as well as about the absence of a real and effective recourse under national law that would allow them to complain about these conditions.
With regard to the 1st applicant, the ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 3 due to the general conditions of detention prevailing in Diavata and Patras prisons and in particular due to overcrowding. The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 3 for the 2nd applicant, stating that the conditions of her detention (as described in par. 10-17 and 61-66 of the decision) combined with the duration of her confinement, subjected her to an ordeal that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. In addition, the ECtHR, finding no reason to depart from its established jurisprudence, concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 for both applicants.
In this case the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Diavata prison and about the absence of a real and effective remedy under national law allowing him to complain about those conditions.
The ECtHR concluded that the conditions of his detention constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, as well as a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR due to the absence of a real and effective recourse under national law that would allow him to complain about these conditions.
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
