Background
Eight applicants complained about conditions at Korydallos Prison in Greece, including overcrowding. Ioannis Vlamis was held there from January 2018 to July 2020, and Romaios Elenidis from April 2019 to July 2020. They alleged that they had less than three square metres of personal space and identified additional shortcomings including restricted access to warm water, poor hygiene, inadequate temperature, poor food, limited fresh air and passive smoking.
Five applicants had been transferred from Korydallos before filing their Strasbourg application and did not show that their later detention involved essentially the same conditions. A sixth applicant, Ilir Nexhipaj, did not provide requested updated information or a detention certificate after the Court’s request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court struck out Nexhipaj’s application because the lack of updated information showed that it was no longer justified to continue examining his case. It rejected the Article 3 complaints of the five applicants who had already left Korydallos before applying, finding that they should first have pursued a compensatory action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code for an alleged past violation.
The Court declared Vlamis’s and Elenidis’s Article 3 complaints admissible and found a violation. It accepted that Korydallos was operating beyond capacity throughout their detention, producing a manifest and non-temporary lack of personal space. It did not separately examine their Article 13 complaint. The Court awarded Vlamis EUR 9,900 and Elenidis EUR 6,100 for non-pecuniary damage, plus EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- Severe, sustained overcrowding at Korydallos Prison violated Article 3 for Vlamis and Elenidis.
- Former detainees seeking redress for completed detention conditions must use Greece’s Article 105 compensatory remedy before applying to Strasbourg.
- The Court struck out one applicant’s case after his representative failed to provide requested updated information.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s established approach that a serious and lasting lack of personal space can itself, or together with other deficiencies, make detention degrading under Article 3. It also underscores the procedural distinction between an ongoing detention problem and a completed period of detention for which an effective domestic compensation remedy must be exhausted.