THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21051/15
Christos DAIS and Others against Greece
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, President of the State Legal Council and their Agent’s delegates Mrs K. Nasopoulou, Senior Adviser, and K. Karavasili and S. Papaioannou, Legal Representatives at the State Legal Council, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications indicated as a partial decision in the appended table;

the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants;

the withdrawal of Mr Ioannis Ktistakis, the judge elected in respect of Greece, from sitting in case no. 21051/15 (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court);

noting that the Governments of the applicants’ nationality (where applicable) have not made use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The present case concerns the applicants’ conditions of detention in Grevena prison. Their periods of detention are listed in the appended table.

1. The applicants’ account

2.  The applicants complained of overcrowding (between 2 and 2,4 sq.m. available per prisoner), insufficient medical care (applicants nos. 1, 13, 17, 23, 29 and 31 of application no. 3694/16), insufficient heating, hygiene problems, lack of prison staff to guarantee their safety and insufficient quality and quantity of food and recreational activities.

2. The Government’s account

3.  According to the Government, the personal space available per prisoner ranged between 3,25 and 4,3 sq. m. for ordinary cells, and between 5,02 and 11,04 sq. m. for disciplinary cells. The prison provided the services of a medical practitioner who visited twice per week, as well as a dentist and a psychiatrist. Applicants nos. 1, 13, 17, 23, 29 and 31 in application no. 3694/16 received adequate medical care, as demonstrated by the relevant supporting documents. They further indicated that there was sufficient heating and cleanliness, the weekly menu was approved by the prison doctor, and the prison was equipped with a library, a reading and entertainment room, as well as a gym.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. Joinder of the applications

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. Strike out request lodged by applicant no. 10 (application no. 5621/16)

5.  On 19 January 2017 Mr Lytridis, applicant no. 10 in application no. 5621/16, informed the Court that he no longer wished to pursue his application. The Government submitted no comments in that regard.

6.  The Court takes note of the fact that this applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, it finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application. Accordingly, this part of the application no. 5621/16 should be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention of the list of cases.

3. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

7.  The Government argued that the case should be declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding some of the applicants (nos. 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, 21, 27, 29 and 31 in application no. 3694/16, and nos. 6, 8, 12 and 15 in application no. 5621/16). The applicants disagreed.

8.  The Court does not find it necessary to address the Government’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies nor to examine the entirety of the parties’ arguments, as the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

9.  The Court notes at the outset that the applicants referred, among different aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention, to insufficient medical care. It reiterates that any complaint relating to inappropriate medical treatment in detention should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, medical prescriptions that were sought, made or refused, and some evidence – for example, expert reports – capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant’s medical care (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, § 76, 2 October 2018, with further reference). In the absence of such elements provided by the applicants in the present case, the Court will not take into account this part of the complaint in its overall assessment of their conditions of detention (see, for a similar approach, Zabelos and Others v. Greece, no. 1167/15, § 77, 17 May 2018).

10.  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, 20 October 2016).

11.  Turning to the material conditions of detention prevailing in Grevena prison, the Court has found on numerous occasions that they did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, having examined grievances similar to those raised in the present case and concerning similar periods of time (see Konstantinopoulos and Others v. Greece, no 69781/13, §§ 46-54, 28 January 2016; Kalandia v. Greece, no. 48684/15, §§ 71-72, 6 October 2016; Koureas and Others v. Greece, no 30030/15, §§ 66-74, 18 January 2018; G.T. v. Greece , no 37830/16, §§ 48-59, 13 December 2022; Chaniotis and Others v. Greece [Committee] (dec.), §§ 73‑93, 11 December 2018; and Arfan and Others v. Greece [Committee] (dec.), no. 33352/15, §§ 47-70, 28 September 2021).

12.  In the present case, the applicants complain of the general conditions of detention without explaining how they were individually affected by them (see Konstantinopoulos and Others, § 52; Koureas and Others, § 73; and Chaniotis and Others, § 91, all cited above). In these circumstances, the Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion as regards the general conditions of detention prevailing in Grevena prison. It follows that the above-mentioned conditions of detention did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and did not constitute degrading treatment.

13.  Accordingly, the complaint should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded according to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

4. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

14.  The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found that the applicants’ complaints relating to the general conditions of their detention are manifestly ill-founded (see paragraph 13 above), no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in their cases.

15.  It follows that the complaints under Article 13 are also manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike application no. 5621/16 out of its list regarding applicant no. 10;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 June 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
 Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases: