European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21978/07
Ramūnas JANKAUSKAS
against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Deputy Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2007,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 September 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ramūnas Jankauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Pakruojis. His application was lodged on 23 April 2007. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Until his arrest, the applicant worked in law enforcement. He had no previous convictions.

From 15 March 1999 until 20 July 2001 the applicant was held at Šiauliai Remand Prison (Šiaulių tardymo izoliatorius).

Subsequently, he submitted numerous complaints to the Ombudsman and the Health Emergency Situations Centre about the conditions of his detention. In addition, in 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint that on 15 December 2000 a female officer had performed a body search on him. However, on 21 May 2001 the Parliamentary Ombudsman found that the female officer had only asked the applicant to show the contents of his pockets, which the applicant had done. The officer had not touched the applicant or his clothes.

In March 2004 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings, seeking compensation for damage he alleged he had sustained due to the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention at Šiauliai Remand Prison. He relied upon Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, as well as on domestic law. To substantiate his claims, the applicant enumerated the cells in which he had been held and listed, in great detail, a number of reports by the Ombudsman and the Health Emergency Situations Centre, given in answer to his claims, to the effect that detention conditions at the remand facility were improper: in particular, that the prison was overcrowded by 100 percent and that hygiene standards were not met. The applicant further argued that he had not received proper medical assistance when detained. He also contended that the prison administration had censored his correspondence with the Court. Lastly, he submitted that, being unhappy because he offered “legal consultations” to other prisoners on how to write complaints to State institutions, the Šiauliai Remand Prison administration had relocated him to a cell with detainees who had already been convicted of offences, thus putting his safety in danger. The fact of the applicant’s placement in the cells with convicted detainees was confirmed by the Ombudsman in his report of 16 April 2003.

The applicant asked the Šiauliai Region Administrative Court to obtain his personal file from Vilnius prison, as he stated that the file contained information to prove his claims. He sought 4,500,000 Lithuanian litai in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 22 May 2006 the Šiauliai Region Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s lawsuit as unfounded. Whilst allowing for the possibility that Šiauliai Remand Prison was overcrowded, the court nonetheless stated that the applicant had not proved how much space he had been afforded during any particular period. Moreover, the prison administration was not guilty of overcrowding, as the number of inmates was determined by the level of crime in the country and the State’s ability to finance prisons. Neither had the applicant proved his complaints about alleged censorship of his correspondence. The court did not respond to the applicant’s argument that his life was at risk because he had been moved to a cell with detainees who already had criminal convictions.

Lastly, on the basis of the applicant’s medical file the court found that the medical assistance the applicant had received in Šiauliai Remand Prison had been adequate. The court also noted that on 26 April 2000 the applicant had confirmed, in writing, that he had no claims against the medical personnel of the remand facility.

The applicant appealed, reiterating his arguments about overcrowding and unsanitary conditions of detention as well as his right to respect for his correspondence. He submitted that evidence as to the breach of his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention was in his personal file, which the first-instance court had not obtained from Vilnius prison.

On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court concurred with the reasoning of the lower court and dismissed the applicant’s claims as unfounded.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained of censorship by the Šiauliai Remand Prison authorities of his correspondence to and from the Court.

THE LAW

A.  As to the complaints about the applicant’s conditions of detention and censorship of his correspondence

The applicant argued that the conditions of his pre-trial detention were degrading. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to ... inhuman or degrading treatment... ”

The applicant further complained that his correspondence with the Court had been censored. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his ... correspondence.

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime ...”

After unsuccessfull friendly-settlement negociations, by a letter dated 15 September 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the above complaints.The Government further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provides as follows:

“The Government of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – the Government) wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement that in the circumstances of the present case the conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention were not compatible with the requirements under Article 3 of the Convention as regards the overcrowding and sanitary conditions at the pre-trial detention facility. The Government also admit that the censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Court) whilst he had been detained was not compatible with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention. Being aware of that, the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures in order to avoid similar violations in future.

Taking into account that the parties have failed to reach a friendly settlement in the present case, and having regard to the particular facts of the case as well as to the case-law of the Court in similar cases, in particular Karalevičius v. Lithuania (7 April 2005, no. 53254/99) ... and Savenkovas v. Lithuania (18 November 2008, no. 871/02), the Government declare that they are prepared to pay to the applicant a compensation in the amount of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), this amount being the global sum and covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred, with a view to terminate the proceedings pending before the Court in the case of Jankauskas v. Lithuania (application no. 21978/07). The said sum will be free of any taxes and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Court’s judgments in similar cases against Lithuania, such as the aforementioned Karalevičius and Savenkovas cases, would be an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place.

In the light of the above, the Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”

In a letter of 10 October 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wished the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Lithuania, its practice concerning complaints about the conditions of detention (see, for example, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 29 41, 7 April 2005) and censorship of the applicants’ correspondence with the Court (ibid., §§ 56-61; and Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 126-130, ECHR 2001 VIII).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

B.  As to the remaining complaints

The applicant also complained that he, a law-enforcement officer, had been kept in cells with convicted criminals, thereby putting his safety in danger. The Court notes, however, that the applicant has failed to raise this complaint in his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and must be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant further argued that he had not been afforded adequate medical care whilst detained in Šiauliai Remand Prison. He also contended that a body search was performed on him by a female guard.

The Court has examined the remainder of the above complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the materials in its possession and to the conclusions by the Ombudsman and the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, it finds that these complaints are not substantiated and thus do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, in so far as it concerns the complaints about the conditions of the applicant’s detention and censorship of his correspondence;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President