Background
Five applicants complained about conditions at the Korydallos Prison Hospital. The principal allegations concerned overcrowding and deficient hygiene, privacy, bathing and toilet access, bedding, and outdoor time. Nesto Lowbokorae was detained there from 22 June 2017 to 15 February 2019.
During the Strasbourg proceedings, two applicants died and no heir or close relative sought to continue their claims; a third applicant ceased providing information through his representative. Another applicant, Aggelos Papadakis, had been released before applying to the Court and had not used the compensatory domestic action available under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code.
The Court’s Holding
The Court struck out the claims of Apostolos Serdenis and Yousuf Yousuf after their deaths, and Daniel Znzivadze’s part of the application because it was no longer justified to continue examining it. It rejected Papadakis’s Article 3 detention-conditions complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since he sought redress for past detention after his release.
As to Lowbokorae, the Court found an Article 3 violation. Although the Government asserted that he had at least 4.2 square metres of personal space during most of the relevant period, it did not provide adequate dormitory-level population records or sufficient evidence that the overall conditions were acceptable. The Court relied on its prior findings concerning Korydallos Prison Hospital and a CPT report documenting persistent poor conditions, including inadequate sanitation, poor bedding, bed bugs, low temperatures, and overcrowding. It made no separate ruling on his Article 13 complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Inadequate overall detention conditions can violate Article 3 even where the alleged personal-space figures are above the most acute overcrowding threshold.
- A released applicant challenging past prison conditions must generally use Greece’s Article 105 compensatory remedy before applying to Strasbourg.
- The Court awarded Lowbokorae EUR 7,100 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in costs and expenses.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that the Court assesses detention conditions cumulatively and requires governments to substantiate their factual account with reliable prison records. General assertions about capacity, diet, activities, or later institutional improvements will not answer a documented account of deficient conditions during the applicant’s actual detention.
It also illustrates the procedural consequences of death, loss of contact, and failure to exhaust an available post-release compensatory remedy in multi-applicant prison-conditions cases.