Pentarakis and Others v. Greece — Court finds violation of Article 3 due to overcrowded and unsanitary prison conditions at Patras facility

Case
Pentarakis and Others v. Greece
Court
European Court of Human Rights
Date Decided
9 July 2026
Citation
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0709JUD008291417
Topics
Prison conditions, Overcrowding, Inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 3 Convention
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Between 2013 and 2023, 18 applicants were detained in Patras prison in Greece. They filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the Convention on 23 November 2017, complaining of inadequate detention conditions including overcrowding, lack of warm water, inadequate temperature, mold, dirty cells, poor water quality, inadequate hygienic facilities, poor food quality, lack of fresh air, and infestations with insects and rodents.

The Government argued that dormitories measured 28.6 square meters and housed between five and eight detainees, and that cells measured 8.6 square meters with two detainees (or three in exceptional short-term circumstances). Four applicants were struck from the case for lack of contact with the Court. Four other applicants were rejected for failing to exhaust domestic remedies, having been released before lodging the application.

The Court’s Holding

The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for 18 applicants regarding inadequate detention conditions. The Court established that dormitories actually measured 22.5 square meters (corroborated by a 2009 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture report), not the 28.6 square meters claimed by Greece. With five to eight detainees, this resulted in only 2.81 square meters of personal space per inmate—far below acceptable standards. Similarly, cells housing three detainees provided less than 3 square meters per person, and the Government failed to specify for how long this overcrowding persisted.

The Court noted that Greece had failed to discharge its burden of proof by providing no primary evidence such as floor plans or building documentation. Drawing on established case-law regarding Patras prison’s overcrowding between 2015 and 2017, combined with Ministry of Justice statistics showing continued overcrowding through 2022, the Court found that the conditions of detention—characterized by serious lack of personal space combined with other deficiencies—constituted degrading treatment in violation of Article 3. The Court awarded varying amounts for non-pecuniary damage (€1,600 to €9,400 per applicant depending on length of detention) and €1,000 jointly for costs and expenses.

Key Takeaways

  • Serious lack of personal space in prison cells is a heavily weighted factor in determining whether detention conditions violate Article 3’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment.
  • When domestic authorities fail to provide documentation supporting their claims about prison conditions, courts accept credible applicant evidence instead; unsupported government assertions carry no weight.
  • A prison facility’s prior history of inadequate conditions, combined with statistical evidence of overcrowding, can establish systematic violations affecting multiple detainees.
  • Applicants released from detention before lodging their complaint must exhaust domestic remedies (such as civil compensation claims) rather than proceeding directly to the Court.

Why It Matters

This judgment reinforces that European states must maintain minimum standards for personal space and sanitation in detention facilities. Patras prison’s documented overcrowding and poor conditions—resulting in approximately 2.8 square meters per inmate—fall well below the threshold required to respect human dignity. The decision holds Greece accountable for systemic failures and underscores that bare claims about facility conditions without supporting documentation will be rejected in favor of credible evidence from independent sources (such as inspection reports) or applicant testimony.

For practitioners, the ruling clarifies that applicants released before filing suit at the Court must pursue domestic civil remedies first, but those still detained when the application is lodged need not exhaust such remedies to challenge ongoing violations. The judgment also confirms that the Court will not defer to government estimates when they lack evidentiary support, particularly where independent bodies have documented contrary facts about prison conditions.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top