5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving a sentence in Viru Prison in Jõhvi. 6.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was transferred from Tallinn Prison to Narva for trial at the local city court. He was placed in Narva Arrest House (arestimaja) where he stayed until 2 May 2005. 7.  Upon his arrival at the arrest house, the applicant was searched and several personal-hygiene items (razor, shaving foam, comb, set for cutting nails, etc.) were taken from him. He was examined by a nurse, to whom he complained that he felt ill and had a pain in his throat. The nurse did not take any measures. 8.  Subsequently, he was sent to a cell designed to accommodate four persons. However, he was the eighth inmate in the cell and had to sleep on the cold and dirty floor. He was given bed sheets and a pillowcase but no mattress, pillow or blanket. Moreover, he had to sit down all the time as there was no room to walk or to stretch out since part of the floor area was taken up by the toilet corner, sink, table and benches, and the place for inmates’ personal belongings. The condition of the cell was insanitary; condensation was dripping from the walls and there was a lack of oxygen as the cell was full of cigarette smoke. There was no possibility to wash or dry clothes. There was one plate and one spoon for three inmates; instead of mugs, plastic yoghurt pots had to be used for tea or water. There was a constant queue to use the sink or the toilet. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. In these conditions the common cold he had had transformed into a long-lasting illness. 9.  On 20 April 2005 the nurse examined the applicant and established that he had a swollen throat. He was given Biseptol pills. His request to be examined by an external specialist was refused because of the cost and the long waiting lists to get a doctor’s appointment. 10.  The applicant made several complaints concerning the conditions of his detention to the head of Narva Arrest House but received no reply. He also wrote to the Ministry of Justice and to the Police Board, who informed the applicant in reply that they were aware of the situation. 11.  Narva Arrest House is located on the third (upper) floor of the regional police headquarters. The building was completed in two phases, the older part in the 1960s and the new part in the 1970s. Since 2004, that is, after the CPT’s visit and recommendations, the following improvements have been made to the arrest house: new lighting has been installed in the cells, the ventilation system has been completely refurbished, the showers have been refurbished and access to national daily newspapers has been ensured to detainees. 12.  Cells nos. 3 and 11, in which the applicant was held, have glass block windows measuring 1.5 m by 1 m, bunks with metal frames, a central-heating radiator, daytime lighting and night lights, a secluded corner with a toilet and cold water for daily hygiene requirements. The detainees can also use hot water. 13.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 11, which was meant for six persons. The size of the cell was 12.5 sq. m. There were seven detainees in the cell. 14.  On 23 April 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 3, which was meant for four persons and measured 12 sq. m. On several days there were six to eight persons in the cell. 15. In respect of the items taken away from the applicant, the Government pointed out that they had been given back to him on 3 May 2005. 16.  In respect of the applicant’s state of health, the Government noted that according to his medical records, he had been ill before he had been placed in Narva Arrest House. He had undergone several health examinations and had been provided with treatment. From 5 December to 15 December 2005 he had been admitted to hospital, diagnosed with thyroid enlargement and prescribed Polivit; it had been found that he did not need special treatment. 17.  On 16 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Jõhvi Administrative Court (halduskohus), claiming 250,000 kroons (EEK – corresponding approximately to 16,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation for the health damage and mental suffering caused by his degrading treatment at Narva Arrest House. 18.  The Administrative Court heard the case on 5 July 2005 in the presence of the applicant and a representative of the Ida Police Prefecture. A nurse from the arrest house gave evidence as a witness. According to her, inmates had been given mattresses and blankets upon their arrival. 19.  In a judgment of 19 July 2005 the court dismissed the complaint. It established that the conditions at Narva Arrest House had not been in compliance with the requirements under the applicable legislation. The applicant had been kept in two different cells, designed respectively for six and four inmates, whereas there had actually been seven or eight persons in the cells. 20.  However, the court considered that compensation for non-pecuniary damage could be awarded only if it was established that certain officials had been at fault for consciously placing the applicant in degrading conditions or for taking actions aimed at torturing or degrading him. According to the court, this had not been established as there was no evidence that the police officers had wished to torture or degrade the applicant or that the unsatisfactory conditions at Narva Arrest House had been created especially for him. 21.  In respect of the damage to the applicant’s health, the court found that he had already been ill on his arrival at the arrest house. He had received treatment during his stay there. The court considered that the fact that he needed subsequent treatment in Tallinn Prison did not enable it to conclude that the treatment received in Narva had been of low quality or that he should have been taken to hospital. There was no reason to assume that he could have been given medical treatment producing considerably better results during his short stay in Narva. 22.  In a judgment of 16 November 2005 the Tartu Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) dismissed an appeal by the applicant. It agreed with the lower court’s finding that the discomfort caused by the overcrowding did not mean that the administration of the arrest house had degraded the applicant’s dignity and thereby caused damage to him. Furthermore, the Administrative Court had correctly found that the applicant had failed to prove that any damage had been caused to his health in connection with his stay at Narva Arrest House. 23.  On 18 January 2006 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) decided not to allow an appeal by the applicant.
II.  FINDINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (CPT) 24.  In September 2003 the CPT carried out a visit to Estonia. On 27 April 2005 it published a report of its visit (CPT/Inf (2005) 6), which contains the following findings:
“26.  The material conditions under which detained persons (in police custody, on remand or sentenced) were being held in certain police arrest houses, including those in Kohtla-Järve and Narva, were appalling; conditions also remained very poor in Jõgeva.
Detainees were locked up 24 hours per day - with no outdoor exercise - in cells that were filthy, dimly lit (with no access to natural light, and poor artificial lighting) and severely overcrowded (up to 15 persons in a cell of 15 m²). The unpartitioned lavatories - where persons were obliged to relieve themselves in the direct presence of their cellmates - exacerbated the effects of the very poor ventilation, rendering the already dank air nauseating. In many cases, persons were provided with no mattresses and blankets, and lacked basic personal hygiene products. The cumulative effect of the execrable material conditions and the impoverished regime could well be described as inhuman and degrading. This state of affairs was exacerbated by the fact that persons were being held under such conditions for prolonged periods (i.e. for up to three months and, on occasion, even longer).
As regards, more particularly, the arrest house at Narva, following complaints made by detainees, the Office of the Legal Chancellor performed an on-the-spot inspection of the establishment in February 2003. In a letter subsequently addressed to the Minister of the Interior, the Legal Chancellor recommended inter alia that improvements be made to lighting, and that at least one daily hour of outdoor exercise be offered to detainees; further, he indicated that the internal regulations violated Section 45 (1) of the Imprisonment Act of 2000, which relates to ‘requirements of construction technology, health and hygiene’, as well as lighting. It is clear from the delegation’s findings that no action has been taken on the Legal Chancellor’s recommendations.
... 28.  An impoverished regime - 24-hour in-cell lock-up - remained the norm for everyone detained in an arrest house. Of the six arrest houses visited by the delegation, Jõgeva was the only one where detainees were being offered the opportunity to take outdoor exercise, albeit only twice a week or so. Even if a particular establishment was equipped with yards, staff shortages were cited as reasons for not granting outdoor exercise to detainees. ...
... 30.  ... [A]t the end-of-visit talks on 30 September 2003, the delegation made an immediate observation concerning Kohtla-Järve and Narva Police Arrest Houses, as well as other arrest houses where similar conditions of detention prevail. It requested the Estonian authorities to take urgent steps to improve conditions of detention in police arrest houses and, in particular, to ensure that:
(i) all persons held overnight in an arrest house are immediately provided with a clean mattress and clean blankets as well as with personal hygiene products (toilet paper, soap, tooth brush and paste, towel, sanitary towels, etc.);
(ii) all persons who are detained for prolonged periods are granted at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day;
(iii) all cells are fitted with adequate artificial lighting. 31. In response to the above-mentioned immediate observation, the Estonian authorities acknowledged that the situation was not satisfactory, indicating that conditions in arrest houses remain an issue of concern to them and that ‘the improvement of the situation is ongoing’.
Responding to item (i) above, the authorities indicated that ‘a sufficient number of bedsheet sets have been provided ...; bedsheets are changed regularly’. It was further indicated that persons are provided with ‘basic toiletries, if necessary’. The CPT wishes to receive confirmation that ‘bedsheet sets’ include clean mattresses and clean blankets.
With reference to item (ii), it was affirmed that, of the 17 arrest houses in Estonia, only four have ‘appropriate walking yards’, where ‘persons have the possibility to stay in the open air for an hour a day’; in the remaining 13 establishments, construction or renovation of walking yards was envisaged for 2004.
As for item (iii), it was indicated that ‘artificial lighting and ventilation have been improved’ in six arrest houses and will be brought ‘into compliance’ in the remaining arrest houses in 2004.
... 53. More generally, the CPT has noted that the average amount of space per remand prisoner in Estonia is 3 m². Such an average does not offer a satisfactory amount of living space; the Committee recommends that the Estonian authorities strive to maintain a standard of at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner in multi-occupancy cells, and that official capacities be calculated accordingly.” 25.  In their responses to the CPT report, published on 27 April 2005 (CPT/Inf (2005) 7), the Government submitted the following, in so far as relevant:
“By the end of 2003 the police authorities had eliminated the following problems outlined by the CPT: missing bed accessories and toilet articles were bought – to be given to those people who do not have them.
...
After the visit of the CPT delegation to the custodial institutions and arrest houses in September 2003 the Police Board issued on 18 November 2003 order No PA12-1.4/249 to the police prefects, ‘The improvement of accommodation and health care conditions in arrest houses’, which provided that police prefectures must buy a sufficient number of bed linen sets (mattress, blanket, sheet, pillow, pillow case) and arrange the regular changing and cleaning of these. Clean bed accessories must be given to each person detained in the arrest house, except those who have been brought in for detoxification.
All police authorities have implemented this order.
...
The Police Board has developed instructions for the initial medical examination to be performed at the time of admitting the person into the arrest house and for sanitary treatment. After these instructions enter into force each person admitted to a arrest house is granted a medical examination within a reasonable time. Medical examinations will be performed by a doctor or a medical assistant. At the latest on January 1, 2005 all police authorities will have signed agreements with a doctor or a medical assistant as regards the performance of initial medical examinations.”