Background
Twenty-four applicants complained about conditions at Patras Prison, where they had been detained at various times between 2010 and 2022. They alleged overcrowding and other shortcomings, including restricted hot-water access, inadequate temperatures, poor hygiene, poor food and water quality, and limited fresh air. Some remand detainees also complained that they had been held with convicted prisoners.
Five applicants did not provide updated information after the Court requested it and their parts of the application were struck out. The heirs of two deceased applicants were permitted to pursue the Article 3 claims. The Court rejected one applicant’s detention-conditions complaint for failure to exhaust the available domestic damages remedy because he had already been released before applying to Strasbourg.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Greece violated Article 3 in respect of the remaining eligible applicants because their detention in Patras Prison was overcrowded. It accepted the applicants’ evidence that the relevant dormitories measured 22.5 square metres, rather than the 28.6 square metres asserted by the Government without primary supporting evidence.
The Government also failed to provide specific information about the number of co-detainees and the duration of periods in which cells and dormitories were occupied beyond capacity. The Court found that inmates had, at times, less than 3 square metres of personal space, against a background of established and persistent overcrowding at Patras Prison. It awarded the successful applicants the individual non-pecuniary damages listed in the appendix and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- Unsupported prison-administration assertions about cell size and occupancy did not discharge the Government’s evidentiary burden.
- Overcrowding resulting in less than 3 square metres of personal space supported an Article 3 violation.
- The Court did not separately decide the Article 13 complaint or the remaining Article 3 allegations once it found the overcrowding violation.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that governments must provide concrete, verifiable evidence on cell dimensions, occupancy, and the duration of overcrowded detention. General assertions that triple occupancy was exceptional or brief will not suffice without applicant-specific details.
It also confirms that relatives may pursue a deceased applicant’s Article 3 claim where they have a legitimate moral interest in obtaining a ruling, while applicants seeking compensation after release must first use the appropriate domestic remedy.