Background
Fifteen applicants complained about conditions at Amfissa prison in Greece, principally alleging severe overcrowding and less than three square metres of personal space in dormitories. The application was lodged on 23 December 2015.
Two applicants’ cases were struck out after one had died without an heir seeking to continue the case and counsel provided no evidence of contact with the other. Four other applicants had been released or transferred before applying to Strasbourg and had not used the domestic damages remedy under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found an Article 3 violation for nine applicants in relation to inadequate detention conditions at Amfissa prison during the periods specified in the appendix. The Government’s records showed that dormitory occupancy in parts of 2015 and 2016 could substantially exceed the level compatible with three square metres per detainee; for 2017 to 2021, Greece did not provide dormitory-level occupancy records capable of rebutting the applicants’ overcrowding allegations.
The Court struck out the claims of two applicants, rejected the Article 3 claims of four applicants for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and found it unnecessary to examine the Article 13 effective-remedy complaint separately. It awarded the successful applicants non-pecuniary damages ranging from €1,900 to €9,400, plus any applicable tax.
Key Takeaways
- Unrebutted evidence of detention with less than three square metres of personal space can establish degrading conditions under Article 3.
- Prison authorities’ failure to provide detailed dormitory-occupancy records may prevent the Government from disproving overcrowding allegations.
- Applicants challenging past detention conditions after release or transfer must generally first use Greece’s Article 105 damages remedy.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that reliable, cell- or dormitory-specific population records are central to defending prison-conditions cases. General prison headcounts and official-capacity figures were insufficient here to answer allegations of inadequate personal space.
It also distinguishes ongoing conditions claims from claims seeking redress for completed detention: where the alleged violation is already over, the Court expects applicants to pursue the available domestic compensatory remedy first.