FIRST SECTION

CASE OF GRAMMOSENIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

(Application no. 16287/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 March 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Grammosenis and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Kristina Pardalos, President,
	Robert Spano,
	Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 16287/13) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 March 2013 by twenty-one applicants of various nationalities whose names appear in the annexed list. They were represented by Mr K. Tsitselikis and Mr A. Spathis, lawyers practising in Thessaloniki.
2.  The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegate, Mrs M. Skorila, Legal Representative to the State Legal Council.
3.  On 28 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
Article I.	I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicants were placed in pre-trial detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters on Monasteriou St in Thessaloniki. They were detained for periods ranging from one to eight months.
5.  The applicants mentioned below left the General Police Headquarters on the following dates: the first applicant on 16 August 2012, the sixth applicant on 20 August 2012, the thirteenth applicant on 14 August 2012 and the nineteenth applicant on 17 June 2012. It is not clear from the material in the Court’s possession whether they were released or transferred to prisons.
6.  The eleventh applicant was detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters from 7 May 2012 to 18 September 2012, except for the period between 5 July 2012 and 1 August 2012, when he was detained at the Thessaloniki Aliens Division. The fourteenth applicant was detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters from 16 July 2012 to 3 September 2012, apart from 17 August 2012 to 27 August 2012, when he was held at Menemeni police station. The sixteenth applicant was detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters from 18 April 2012 to 24 September 2012, except for the period between 27 April 2012 and 11 July 2012, when he was detained at the Thessaloniki Aliens Division. The seventeenth applicant was detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters from 25 April 2012 to 14 August 2012, except for 11 June 2012 to 1 August 2012, when he was detained at the Thessaloniki Aliens Division. The eighteenth applicant was detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters from 16 July 2012 to 25 December 2012, except for 16 August 2012 to 16 October 2012, when he was held at Menemeni police station.
Section 1.01	A.  The applicants’ submissions on the conditions of their detention
7.  The applicants alleged that Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters had been entirely inappropriate for long periods of detention, as in their case. The cells had been insufficiently lit and ventilated, which, in addition to overcrowding, had led to their cells smelling badly.
8.  Detainees had been confined to their cells owing to the lack of an exercise yard. Recreational activities had not been offered and cells had not been equipped with televisions. Detainees had had to ask permission from the guards to use the restroom, which had been situated outside the cells and had been shared by seventy people.
9.  There had not been sufficient separation between detainees who were drug users or smokers and other detainees. Additionally, the cells had never been disinfected nor the mattresses cleaned. Detainees had not been allowed to bring their own sheets and towels, but had been obliged to use dirty ones provided by the prison authorities.
10.  As regards nutrition, meals had been of an insufficient quality and quantity and had never included meat. Detainees had not been provided with water but had had to buy it themselves.
11.  On 30 August 2012 the applicants and other detainees had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor about the conditions of their detention at Thessaloniki Police Headquarters but had not received a reply.
12.  The eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth applicants submitted in their written observations of 13 September 2013 that the conditions of their detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens Division and Menemeni police station had essentially been the same as those at the police headquarters, in particular as regards the lack of outdoor activities, the quality of the food and the filthiness of the premises.
Section 1.02	B.  The Government’s submissions on the conditions of the applicants’ detention
13.  The Government submitted that Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters had had nineteen cells with a total capacity of seventy-three people. Fifteen cells with capacity for fifty-five inmates had accommodated male detainees, one cell for six people had accommodated females while three cells with capacity for twelve people had been set aside for minors.
14.  Most of the cells had windows, which had been partially covered by walls and rails but which had still admitted natural light and fresh air. The sanitary facilities had been no different from the ones used by the Police Headquarters staff and had been cleaned by a cleaning company every day, along with the rest of the premises. Sheets and blankets had been regularly sent to the Thessaloniki General Detention Facility (Diavata Prison) for cleaning. If detainees had suffered from a contagious disease, their sheets and blankets had been destroyed following their departure.
15.  Detainees were allowed access to newspapers, magazines and four payphones. Additionally, they were allowed visits from their lawyers at any time and from friends and family four times per week.
16.  Detainees were served food from the restaurant situated in the building, which was the same as that used by police officers.
17.  The Thessaloniki Aliens Division, where the eleventh, sixteenth and seventeenth applicants had been detained for several months, had ten cells measuring 58.85 square metres each, which included two toilets and showers. The eleventh, sixteenth and seventeenth applicants had been detained in cell no. 3 along with a number of other detainees whose number had varied from nine to fifteen. The cells had been sufficiently well-lit and ventilated and had been regularly cleaned. Meals had been provided by a catering company. Detainees had access to newspapers and televisions and were allowed visits from their family and friends three times per week.
18.  As regards Menemeni police station, where the fourteenth and eighteenth applicants had been detained for a certain period of time, the Government submitted that it was housed in a building constructed in 2008. The fourteenth and eighteenth applicants had been detained in a cell of 26 square metres accommodating five detainees. The cells had been sufficiently well-lit and ventilated and a cleaning company had maintained the cleanliness of the premises. Detainees had received 5.87 euros per day to order food from restaurants.
19.  The Government further contended that the applicants’ allegations of a lack of separation between drug users and other detainees should be rejected as the applicants had not alleged that they themselves had been detained in the same cells as drug users.
Article II.	II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
20.  The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court’s judgments in Aslanis v. Greece (no. 36401/10, §§ 12-17, 17 October 2013) and A.F. v. Greece (no. 53709/11, §§ 30-32, 13 June 2013).
Article III.	III.  REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE (CPT)
21.  Following a visit to Greece in April 2013, the CPT published a report dated 16 October 2014 (CPT/Inf (2014) 26), in which it noted that the conditions of detention in most of the police stations visited were unsuitable for holding detained persons for longer than a few days, or even for more than 24 hours in some cases. It stressed, in particular, the existence of overcrowding, insufficient light and ventilation, bad sanitary conditions and a total lack of outdoor exercise. As regards the provision of food, it noted:
“48.  The arrangements as regards the provision of food remained inadequate in many of the establishments visited. The CPT has already made it clear that the current system of providing a daily allowance of Euro 5.87 does not enable detained persons to purchase the necessary nutrition (and other products) required during prolonged periods of detention, as purchases are often made at commercial prices from restaurants. Indeed, it only suffices to buy a couple of sandwiches and some water. In those police and border guard stations where food is provided from the police canteen or by a caterer twice a day, the situation is better, although more vegetables and fruit could be provided. All persons detained for longer than a few days should be provided with one hot meal a day.”
22.  As regards the conditions of detention in Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, the CPT noted the following:
“41.  The third floor detention area at Monasteriou Police Headquarters in Thessaloniki contained 20 cells with an official capacity of 73 (based on the number of concrete plinths), and was accommodating 78 men (remand prisoners and irregular migrants) and three women at the time of the visit. The murky cells had almost no access to natural light and were barely illuminated by the artificial lighting in the corridors which shone through the cell bars; reading required straining the eyes. There was no in-cell sanitation, and detainees complained that access to the toilet, particularly at night, was difficult and that sometimes they had to urinate in bottles. They also complained about the lack of cleaning products and the poor state of hygiene in the cells. Further, many complaints were received about lack of access to a doctor. In addition, there was no outdoor exercise yard and no television, radio or other activities. Many persons had been held three to four months in these conditions.”
THE LAW
Article IV.	I.  THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Section 4.01	A.  Abuse of the right of individual petition
23.  The Government submitted that the applicants had abused their right of individual petition. They argued that the applicants had not informed the Court when their detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters had ended. Additionally, the eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth applicants had only informed the Court of the periods they had been detained in other police stations after that information had been provided in the Government’s observations (see paragraph 6 above). The applicants had thus neglected to inform the Court of elements in their possession that were essential for the examination of the case, in particular as regards the six-month time-limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies.
24.  The applicants did not put forward any argument regarding the date that their detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters had ended. The eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth applicants maintained that they had described all the police stations where they had been detained in detail.
25.  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of application if it was knowingly based on untrue facts with the intention of misleading the Court (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000‑X). The same applies where new, significant developments occur during the proceedings before the Court and where – despite being expressly required to do so by Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court – the applicant fails to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (see Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007, and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25‑27, 2 December 2008). However, even in such cases, the applicant’s intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 58-60, 28 March 2006, and Nold v. Germany, no. 27250/02, § 87, 29 June 2006).
26.  In the present case the Court notes that the applicants stated in their application that they had been detained at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters for various periods, ranging from one to four months. Although their application did not mention when their detention had ended the description of the conditions of their detention clearly referred to the past. In addition, the failure of the eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth applicants to inform the Court of the periods spent in other police stations is not a sufficient basis for concluding that they have abused their right of individual petition, in particular because their detention at the other police stations formed a continuous situation with that at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters (see paragraph 37 below).
27.  In those circumstances, the Government’s objection cannot be upheld.
Section 4.02	B.  Compliance with the six-month time-limit
(a)	1.  The first, sixth, thirteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants
28.  The Government contended that the first, sixth, thirteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants had failed to lodge their application with the Court within the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. According to the Government, the above-mentioned applicants had left Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters on the following dates: the first applicant on 16 August 2012, the sixth applicant on 20 August 2012, the thirteenth and seventeenth applicants on 14 August 2012 and the nineteenth applicant on 17 June 2012. They had not lodged their application until 1 March 2013, more than six months later, and so it should be rejected.
29.  The applicants did not dispute the contention that they had left Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters on the dates stated by the Government. They argued, however, that the six-month time-limit had not yet begun since they had not received a reply to their complaint to the public prosecutor concerning the conditions of their detention, as provided for by Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 11 above).
30.  The Court reiterates that as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. This entitles only remedies which are normal and effective to be taken into account as an applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006).Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of the knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002). In cases featuring a continuing situation, the six-month period runs from the cessation of that situation (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 34, 26 June 2008, and Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 30 March 2004).
31.  Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the first, sixth, thirteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants were released on various dates in June and August 2012 (see paragraphs 5-6 above). Therefore, when they lodged their application with the Court on 1 March 2013 (see paragraph 1 above), more than six months had elapsed from the end of their respective periods in detention. As regards their argument that the six-month time-limit had not yet begun because they had not received a reply to their complaint to the public prosecutor, the Court reiterates that when applicants claim to have been personally affected by conditions prevailing in a prison or a police station, the remedy provided for by Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Papakonstantinou v. Greece, no. 50765/11, § 51, 13 November 2014, and Aslanis v. Greece, no. 36401/10, § 29, 17 October 2013). As a consequence, the applicants’ complaint to the public prosecutor cannot be taken into account in calculating the six-month period as it offered no effective redress for the complaint at issue (see, to that effect, Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, 7 November 2000).
32.  It follows that the Government’s objection should be upheld and that the application should be rejected as far as the first, sixth, thirteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants are concerned, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4, on the grounds of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit.
(b)	2.  The eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth applicants
33.  The Court reiterates that in contrast to an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by a respondent Government, it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the Government concerned have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, § 80, 29 January 2009; Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; and Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
34.  The Court observes that the eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth applicants were all detained for various periods at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, were transferred to the Thessaloniki Aliens Division and Menemeni police station for periods ranging from ten days to two months and fourteen days, and then transferred back to the police headquarters (see paragraph 6 above). The Court also notes that these applicants submitted that the conditions of detention in all three police stations were essentially the same.
35.  The Court has to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to make a cumulative assessment of the periods of the applicants’ detention in the different facilities.
36.  The Court reiterates that the concept of a “continuing situation” refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuous activities by or on the part of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002‑VII). A period of an applicant’s detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” as long as the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012). An applicant’s release or transfer to a different type of detention regime, both within and outside the facility, would put an end to the “continuing situation”. A complaint about conditions of detention must be filed within six months of the end of the situation complained of or, if there was an effective domestic remedy to be used, of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of remedies (ibid., § 78).
37.  Examining the situation of the eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth applicants in the light of the above principles, the Court notes that they were held at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters on two occasions. In the interim, they were not released or transferred to a prison but were detained in other police stations, where the conditions of detention were substantially similar. It follows that the periods of the above applicants’ detention in all the facilities in question should be assessed cumulatively and be considered as a “continuing situation” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. The Court therefore finds that the eleventh, fourteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth applicants complied with the six-month rule in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 13 relating to the entire period of their detention.
Section 4.03	C.  Exhaustion of domestic remedies
38.  The Government raised a further preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the grounds that the applicants had been released or transferred to a prison prior to lodging their application with the Court. The Government submitted that the applicants should have lodged an action for damages with the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Code or Article 3 of the Convention.
39.  The Government also referred to provisions of the Penal Code (Law no. 2776/1999) and of Presidential Decree no. 141/1991, arguing that they could have been invoked before the national courts in conjunction with section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code.
40.  The applicants maintained that the remedies suggested by the Government were not effective: in the first place, they were purely compensatory in nature and could not offer sufficient redress for the structural deficiencies of the detention facilities; secondly, it would take several years for the Greek courts to give a judgment in their case.
41.  The Court notes that it has already considered the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in cases concerning conditions of detention similar to the present case (see, in particular, Kavouris and Others v. Greece, no. 73237/12, §§ 22-31, 17 April 2014, and Lici v. Greece, no. 69881/12, §§ 32-43, 17 April 2014). It has consistently rejected it on the grounds that, as national case-law currently stands, an action under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code in conjunction with the provisions referred to by the Government would not offer appropriate redress to applicants.
42.  The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous rulings in the present case.
43.  In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it could not be required of the applicants in the instant case to pursue the remedy suggested by the Government. The Government’s objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.
Article V.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
44.  The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, the Thessaloniki Aliens Division and Menemeni police station had violated their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as provided for in Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Section 5.01	A.  Admissibility
45.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
Section 5.02	B.  Merits
46.  The applicants alleged that the conditions of their detention had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, drawing the Court’s attention in particular to the lack of outdoor activities and the poor quality of the food. They argued that their detention in police stations for such long periods of time had constituted per se a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and cited the Court’s judgments in Vafiadis v. Greece (no. 24981/07, 2 July 2009), Shuvaev v. Greece (no. 8249/07, 29 October 2009) and Ibram v. Greece (no. 39606/09, 25 October 2011), in which the Court had found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.
47.  Referring to their own description, the Government argued that the conditions of the applicants’ detention had been adequate.
48.  The Court notes that it has on many occasions examined the conditions of detention in police stations in respect of persons who have been remanded or detained pending expulsion, and found them to be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (Siasios and Others v. Greece, no. 30303/07, 4 June 2009; Vafiadis, cited above; Shuvaev, cited above; Tabesh v. Greece, no. 8256/07, 26 November 2009; Efremidi v. Greece, no. 33225/08, 21 June 2011; Aslanis, cited above; Adamantidis, cited above; and Kavouris and Others, cited above). Apart from the specific deficiencies concerning the applicants’ detention in each of the above cases, particularly overcrowding, lack of outdoor space for walking, poor sanitary conditions and the poor quality of the food, the Court based its finding of a violation of Article 3 on the nature of the police stations per se, which are places designed to accommodate people for a short time. Imprisonment for between one and three months was thus considered contrary to Article 3 (Siasios and Others, § 32; Vafiadis, §§ 35-36; Shuvaev, § 39; Tabesh, § 43; Efremidi, § 41; Aslanis § 39; Adamantidis § 33; and Kavouris and Others, § 38, all cited above). The Court also notes that three of those cases referred to the conditions of detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, the police station in which the applicants in the present case were detained (see Vafiadis, §§ 32-39; Shuvaev, §§ 30-41; and Ibram§§ 27-36, all cited above). Additionally, the Court has found many violations of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens Division (see, among others, Tabesh v. Greece, no. 8256/07, §§ 34-44, 26 November 2009).
49.  Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicants were detained for periods ranging from one to eight months at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, the Thessaloniki Aliens Division and Menemeni police station, facilities which, in terms of their design, lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.
50.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case than the one it reached in the above-cited cases. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ conditions of detention.
Article VI.	III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
51.  Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3.
52.  The Government contested that argument.
53.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
54.  For the same reasons as those which have led to the dismissal of the Government’s objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 38-43 above), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 13 owing to the absence of any effective remedies in respect of the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of their detention.
Article VII.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
55.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
Section 7.01	A.  Damage
56.  The applicants claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Invoking the Court’s judgments in Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02, 4 March 2008), Galotskin v. Greece (no. 2945/07, 14 January 2010) and Taggatidis and Others v. Greece (no. 2889/09, 11 October 2011), the applicants requested that any sums awarded to them be paid into a bank account indicated by their representative owing to the number of applicants and the complexity of the logistical issues involved.
57.  The Government contested those claims. They argued that the sums claimed by the applicants were excessive and amounted to ten times the minimum salary applicable in Greece at the time.
58.  The Court finds that the applicants must have experienced suffering and frustration as a result of the breaches of their rights under Article 3. By contrast, the finding of a violation may in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for a breach of Article 13 of the Convention flowing from the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint (see Ananyev, cited above, § 173). Ruling in equity, as required under Article 41 of the Convention, it awards each of the applicants EUR 4,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts.
Section 7.02	B.  Costs and expenses
59.  The applicants also claimed EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, stating they had concluded a legal services agreement with their representatives. They asked for this sum to be paid directly to the bank account indicated by their representatives.
60.  The Government contested that amount, arguing that the case had not been complex, that the procedure before the Court had not involved any costs and that the applicants had not documented their claims.
61.  The Court notes that the applicants did not submit a copy of their agreement with their representatives for legal services. It accordingly dismisses their claim.
Section 7.03	C.  Default interest
62.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Declares the application admissible in respect of the second to fifth, seventh to twelfth, fourteenth to sixteenth, eighteenth, twentieth and twenty-first applicants and inadmissible in respect of the first, sixth, thirteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicants’ detention;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies regarding the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicants’ detention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay within three months each of the applicants EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Renata Degener	Kristina Pardalos
	Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX
1.	Antonis GRAMMOSENIS is a Greek national who was born in 1967
2.	Aian HASSAN is an Algerian national who was born in 1990
3.	Manol ANCHOV is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1986
4.	Charalambos GIANNOPOULOS is a Greek national who was born in 1969
5.	Zeb ORAG ZAIB is a Pakistani national who was born in 1982
6.	Kosmas SAMBANIS is a Greek national who was born in 1978
7.	Evaggelos CHARALKAS is a Greek national who was born in 1972
8.	Jamal ABAS is a Palestinian national who was born in 1991
9.	Ramis SALIOGLU is a Macedonian national who was born in 1965
10.	Mile FERDINAND is an Albanian national who was born in 1988
11.	Christopher ODINAKA is a Nigerian national who was born in 1983
12.	Nikolae GOGA is a Romanian national who was born in 1979
13.	Stavros KIOSSES is a Greek national who was born in 1978
14.	Nikos ARGYROPOULOS is a Greek national who was born in 1955
15.	Tariel TSOUCHIDIS is a Georgian national who was born in 1971
16.	Charis ATZAMIDIS is an Armenian national who was born in 1984
17.	Besnik KOLNDREU is an Albanian national who was born in 1986
18.	Stylianos PAPADOPOULOS is a Greek national who was born in 1986
19.	Markos LIAKOS is a Greek national who was born in 1980
20.	Laurentiu MARIN is a Romanian national who was born in 1983
21.	Nicolae GOGA is a Romanian national who was born in 1963