SIMANOVIČS v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Mr Jevgēnijs Simanovičs, is a “permanently resident noncitizen” of the Republic of Latvia who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence Riga. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Mazapša, a lawyer practising in Babīte. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 2. The relevant facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows. 3. As of 31 August 2004 the applicant was detained in Daugavgrīva Prison (Daugavgrīvas cietums). Prior to 1 November 2008 it had been named Daugavpils Prison (Daugavpils cietums). In the course of his detention the applicant also spent certain periods of time in other prisons. It appears that he stayed in Daugavgrīva Prison until 21 July 2011. 4. On 21 January 2009 the applicant complained to the Prisons Administration about the conditions in Daugavgrīva Prison. He asked to be released until prison conditions had been improved and requested a monetary compensation of 100,000 Latvian lati (LVL). 5. First of all, he submitted that the prison was overcrowded. He was housed in cell no. 208, which was occupied by ten persons, even though it had been designed for five. The situation was similar in other prison cells. On 9 September 2008 he had been transported to a hospital owing to heart problems. Upon his release from the hospital he had been returned to the same cell no. 208. 6. Furthermore, the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to cigarette smoke on a daily basis. 7. Also, two sets of bunk beds had been placed next to each other. The applicant had to sleep next to another man, and another inmate was sleeping above the applicant. His sleep suffered as a result, and his nervous system was also negatively affected. 8. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the cells were not equipped with emergency buttons in order to call for help. He generally stated that he was unable to purchase the necessary products in the prison shop. 9. On 27 February 2009 the Prisons Administration dismissed the applicant’s aforementioned complaint. 10. With regard to the issue of living space, the Prisons Administration found that the applicant had been provided with living space as required by statute, namely a minimum of 2.5 m² (see paragraph 47 below). In reaching that conclusion the Prisons Administration provided information on the floor area and intended number of inmates for each of the applicant’s cells between 18 October 2008 and 6 February 2009, including cell no. 208. 11. As to the applicant’s complaint of exposure to cigarette smoke, according to the applicant’s submissions of 10 November 2008 he had refused his transfer to a non-smoking cell. Also, on 8 January 2009 he had requested that two packs of cigarettes, a lighter and matches be purchased for him in the prison shop. 12. The Prisons Administration did not react to the complaint concerning bunk beds. 13. Lastly, it provided general information on the products available at the prison shop. 14. That decision could be challenged before the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa). 15. On 9 March 2009 the Administrative District Court received the applicant’s complaint, as supplemented on 31 August 2009, regarding poor conditions in Daugavgrīva Prison over “a long period of time”. The applicant requested financial compensation. 16. He submitted that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions in the prison. He raised most of the same issues as previously before the Prisons Administration, namely overcrowding, his exposure to cigarette smoke, the bunk beds, and the absence of an emergency button. 17. He further criticised the first aid in response to his heart attack on 9 September 2008, and submitted that prior to his arrest in 2004 he had not suffered from heart problems. Following the heart attack, the applicant had refused his transfer to a single-occupancy cell because it already held two inmates and thus would not remedy his situation. He argued that he had purchased the cigarettes in order to use them to repel rodents. 18. In addition, owing to the large number of inmates, the applicant had difficulty in accessing sanitary facilities, including a non-partitioned toilet, and a table to have a meal. There was also a bad smell and a lack of ventilation in the prison cells. He was locked up in those conditions for twenty-three hours a day. 19. On 28 April 2010 the Administrative District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 20. Concerning the issue of overcrowding, the District Court concluded that the information provided by Daugavgrīva Prison showed that between 18 October 2008 and 6 February 2009 the applicant had been held in prison cells with a surface area of at least 2.6 m² per person, which complied with statutory requirements. 21. As to the applicant’s confinement with smokers, the District Court held that the statutes did not require smokers and non-smokers to be held separately. However, such an obligation was incumbent on the prison once a convicted person had made a request to be transferred to a non-smoking cell. 22. In that regard, there was no evidence that the applicant had made such a request prior to his heart attack on 9 September 2008. He had made the request on 1 November 2008. Yet he had refused to be placed in non-smoking cell no. 223 because of certain conditions in that cell. However, there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had informed the prison of these issues and had requested that they be addressed or that he be moved to a different cell. That being the case, it could not be said that the prison had ignored the applicant’s requests in relation to non-smoking conditions and that he had been forced to share a cell with smokers. 23. As regards the bunk beds, the District Court did not accept that beds had led to the applicant’s being subjected to inhuman treatment. His sleep problem had nothing to do with the beds. It was a medical issue, concerning which the applicant ought to have consulted a prison doctor. 24. An appeal lay to a higher court against that decision of the Administrative District Court. 25. In his appeal of 30 April 2010, as supplemented on 22 August 2010, the applicant requested that the above-mentioned decision of District Court be quashed and that he be awarded compensation of LVL 100,000. 26. The applicant argued that the lower court had been mistaken in finding that he had been provided with a minimum of 2.5 m² of living space as required by the statutes. The floor space had been taken up by furniture and the toilet, thus reducing the available floor space. 27. He further complained that the statutes should also require, with regard to prisons, that separate, isolated and well-ventilated rooms be provided for smoking. The applicant had no complaints about other inmates smoking, since they were his friends. It was therefore illegitimate to require him to move to a different prison cell. Furthermore, a fine metal mesh had been installed on the windows hampering air circulation. As a result, the applicant had experienced renewed heart problems. 28. On 27 September 2011 the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa) examined the applicant’s appeal and partly granted his claim. 29. The Regional Court noted that during the court hearing the applicant had stated that he had been subjected to inhuman conditions for more than four years. It further stated that the scope of the case was limited to the matters in relation to which the administrative proceedings had been initiated. 30. As regards the applicant’s confinement with smokers, the Regional Court endorsed the lower court’s findings. 31. As to the applicant’s complaint of overcrowding, the Regional Court noted the recommendation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) that at least 4 m² be provided per prisoner in multiple-occupancy cells, as mentioned by the Court in Bazjaks v. Latvia (no. 71572/01, § 37, 19 October 2010). 32. In the applicant’s case, that standard had not been complied with for a period of 104 days, namely between 18 October 2008 and 30 January 2009. Also, as a result of overcrowding, the ventilation during that time had been inadequate. Consequently, the applicant had suffered treatment in breach of the prohibition of torture. 33. In determining the amount of compensation to be paid, the Regional Court took into consideration the degree and duration of the violation of the applicant’s rights. It referred to the case-law of the administrative courts. It also observed that in Bazjaks the Court had awarded 11,700 euros (EUR) where a person had been held for a year in conditions of overcrowding and also of limited out-of-cell activities, lack of personal hygiene products (soap, toothbrush, toilet paper), insufficient ventilation and natural light; in addition, there had been a suspicion that the person had contracted tuberculosis while in detention (ibid., §§ 112-116). 34. That being the case, the Regional Court deemed that compensation of LVL 700 (roughly corresponding to EUR 1,000) was appropriate in the applicant’s situation. 35. That judgment was open to appeal before the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments). 36. On 9 September 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment of the Regional Court. He requested that the Senate of the Supreme Court re-calculate the compensation awarded. 37. He submitted that the appeal court had not taken all the circumstances into account. He further specified that he had been detained in Daugavgrīva Prison in inhuman conditions for a long period of time, namely four years and two months, and that owing to those conditions he had had a heart attack. 38. For each day spent in Daugavgrīva Prison the applicant claimed EUR 100 in compensation, in total EUR 152,000, which he had rounded to LVL 100,000. 39. On 22 June 2012 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 40. It affirmed that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated in the applicant’s case on account of the small living space and insufficient ventilation, which had been switched on for only one or two hours every day. 41. With regard to the applicant’s complaint regarding the period of time considered by the Regional Court, the Senate held that the circumstances of which the applicant had complained to the Prisons Administration had been scrutinised in the present case. First, his complaint in relation to a non-smoking cell had been dismissed, and in that part the Regional Court’s judgment had become final. Further, he had complained about the size of the prison cells. The Senate ruled that none of the facts of the case had been disregarded by the Regional Court. 42. That judgment was final. 43. On 9 July 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prisons Administration about conditions of detention in Daugavgrīva Prison between 31 August 2004 and October 2008. 44. On 8 August 2012 the Prisons Administration dismissed that complaint as out-of-time. 45. Furthermore, in the final decision of the Administrative Regional Court of 11 January 2013 the court proceedings were also rejected in view of the belated nature of the applicant’s complaint. 46. In regard to Article 95 of the Constitution (Satversme) prohibiting the torture and cruel or degrading treatment of a person, see Cēsnieks v. Latvia (no. 9278/06, § 48, 11 February 2014). Moreover, Article 92 enshrines everyone’s right to adequate compensation in the event of an unlawful interference with his or her rights. 47. Article 77 of the Sentence Enforcement Code (Sodu izpildes kodekss), which provides for living space in dormitorytype prison cells of no less than 2.5 m² per person for men, was cited in Jegorovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 53281/08, § 71, 1 July 2014). 48. The Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums) came into force on 1 February 2004. It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge the actions of public authorities (faktiskā rīcība) before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnītis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).