FIRST SECTION
CASE OF FRAGGOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application no. 550/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fraggopoulos and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President, Ioannis Ktistakis, Erik Wennerström, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 December 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in application no. 550/17 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 21 December 2016 by fifty-five applicants (relevant details listed in the Annex of decision Fraggopoulos and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 550/17, 20 November 2020).
2. On 28 August 2017, the Court decided to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible. The Armenian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
3. On 17 November 2020, the Court adopted a decision partly striking out the case from its list and partly declaring it inadmissible (Fraggopoulos and Others, cited above). In particular, as concerned the applicants Mr G. Fraggopoulos, Mr N. Antoniadis, Mr E. Eritsian, Mr D. Papadopoulos, Mr A. Said and Mr I. Tselempis, their complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention were struck out on the basis of a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government.
4. On 31 October 2023, the Court decided to restore the application with regard to the above six applicants (hereafter “the applicants”, see list appended for details) in so far as concerned their complaints which had been struck out, in accordance with Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of Court.
5. The parties submitted comments relating to the restored complaints.
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
6. The present case, as restored, concerns the applicants’ conditions of detention at Diavata Prison in Thessaloniki, where the applicants were detained for the following periods: Mr Fraggopoulos from 7 July 2016 to 9 September 2016; Mr Antoniadis from 6 July 2016 to 10 March 2017; Mr Eritsian from 3 November 2015 to 8 September 2016; Mr Papadopoulos from 6 July 2016 to 12 May 2017; Mr Said from 26 February 2015 to 28 July 2016; and Mr Tselempis from 7 October 2015 to 2 February 2017.
7. The applicants complained that they were detained in poor conditions. In particular, they complained:
- of overcrowding (less than 3 sq. m. of personal space);
- that the prison yard was not covered, thus being unusable in case of extreme weather;
- of the absence of a common room, forcing them to eat at their beds;
- of poor quality and quantity of food;
- of the absence of proper heating and air-conditioning;
- that they were subject to passive smoking;
- of the absence of educational or recreational activities; and
- that they feared retaliation by the authorities if they complained of their conditions of detention.
8. All applicants, except Mr Said, also claimed that they had not received adequate medical treatment while in detention. In particular, Mr Fraggopoulos, Mr Antoniadis and Mr Tselempis complained that they had suffered brutal detoxification in the beginning of their detention as no substitution treatment was available within the prison.
9. On 10 August 2016, the applicants lodged a complaint before the Diavata Prison supervising prosecutor according to Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining of the conditions of their detention. On 31 August 2016, the prosecutor replied in detail to the complaint. He notably admitted that he could not offer redress to the applicants as their complaints concerned structural problems of the Greek penitentiary facilities, first and foremost overcrowding. He reiterated that the authorities were taking active action to improve the situation. As regards the issue of detoxification, the prosecutor noted that applicants could obtain substitution treatment via the relevant KETHEA programmes.
10. The applicants’ conditions of detention are described in detail in the Court’s decision Fraggopoulos and Others (cited above, §§ 5-30).
11. Before the Court, invoking Article 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants reiterated their complaints as set out above in paragraphs 7 and 8.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
12. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Diavata Prison, including the insufficient medical treatment received while in detention, had violated the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment as provided in Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Government claimed that the application has been lodged out of time with regard to Mr Said. They argued in particular that, since the entry into force of Law no. 4322/2015 on 27 April 2015 pertaining to criminal procedure and prison reform, the problem of overcrowding prevailing in Diavata Prison had substantially improved. Thus, Mr Said’s detention after April 2015 did not constitute a “continuing situation” with his detention before April 2015, meaning that the application was lodged out of time in respect of the complaints regarding his detention until 27 April 2015.
14. The Court observes that a similar objection as to the effects of Law 4322/2015 on the conditions of detention prevailing in Greek prisons has been previously rejected (see Iatridis and Others v. Greece, nos. 25993/17 and 2 others, §§ 33-36, 19 November 2020). In the present case, the Court also considers that no significant change occurred in Mr Said’s detention regime in Diavata Prison, and that he was detained in substantially similar conditions during the entire period of his detention there. Therefore, the entirety of this applicant’s detention in Diavata Prison constituted a “continuing situation”. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the six-month requirement.
15. It follows that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
16. The Government argued that the applicants’ detention conditions were satisfactory, notably that they disposed of personal space greater than 3 sq. m. The applicants maintained their complaints.
17. The general principles concerning complaints under Article 3 of the Convention with respect to conditions of detention have been summarised in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-141, 20 October 2016).
18. The Court notes that it has previously found violations of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the general conditions of detention in Diavata Prison (see Adiele and Others v. Greece, no. 29769/13, 25 February 2016, and Papadakis and Others v. Greece, no. 34083/13, 25 February 2016), including in connection to facts pertaining to the material time (see, for illustrative purposes, Marouggas v. Greece [Committee], no. 44689/16, § 20, 4 October 2018, and Pekov and Andreeva v. Greece [Committee], no. 36658/17, §§ 53-58, 6 September 2018). Having examined all the material before it, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It finds that the conditions of the applicants’ detention in Diavata Prison during the above-mentioned periods amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
19. The aforementioned renders it unnecessary for the Court to consider separately the rest of the applicants’ allegations regarding the conditions of their detention, including the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment in detention (see, for illustrative purposes, Georgiou and Others v. Greece [Committee], no. 6813/12, §§ 11 and 60-62, 15 March 2018).
20. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in connection to the general conditions of the applicants’ detention in Diavata Prison.
21. The applicants further alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, complaining that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to raise their abovementioned grievances under Article 3.
22. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. The applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: Mr Fraggopoulos 18,400 euros (EUR); Mr Antoniadis EUR 36,700; Mr Eritsian EUR 43,000; Mr Papadopoulos EUR 43,000; Mr Said EUR 63,800; and Mr Tselempis EUR 60,400.
24. The applicants also claimed 2,000 EUR each in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They argued that these sums correspond to part of the fee agreed with their representative by virtue of contracts and that, in any event, this amount is reasonable considering the work done by their representative and the legal hourly rate for lawyers under domestic law.
25. The Government alleged that the amounts claimed with regard to non-pecuniary damage were excessive and unjustified, and that the claim for costs and expenses should be dismissed as it did not concern expenses actually incurred.
26. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court, taking into account its case-law (Mursic, cited above, § 181) and the documents in the case file, awards the following amounts: to Mr Fraggopoulos (detained for two months) EUR 1,400; to Mr Antoniadis (detained for eight months) EUR 3,600; to Mr Eritsian (detained for 10 months) EUR 4,400; to Mr Papadopoulos (detained for 10 months) EUR 4,400; to Mr Said (detained for one year and five months) EUR 6,300; and to Mr Tselempis (detained for one year and four months) EUR 6,100.
27. As regards costs and expenses, the Court notes that the applicants failed to provide any invoice of costs incurred. The Court has dismissed similar claims for costs and expenses founded on the lawyers’ legal hourly rate under domestic law and on the basis of a contract between the applicants and their representative, as the applicants had failed to produce any invoices (see, for instance, Koureas and Others, cited above, §§ 104‑06; and Zografos and Others v. Greece [Committee], no. 29744/13, §§ 147-49, 19 May 2022). The Court sees no reason to find differently in the present case and dismisses the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 1,400 (one thousand four hundred euros) to Mr Fraggopoulos, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros) to Mr Antoniadis, EUR 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros) to Mr Eritsian, EUR 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros) to Mr Papadopoulos, EUR 6,300 (six thousand three hundred euros) to Mr Said and EUR 6,100 (six thousand one hundred euros) to Mr Tselempis, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
Represented by
Georgios FRAGGOPOULOS
1984
Greek
Thessaloniki
E.-L. Koutra
Nikolaos ANTONIADIS
1987
Entgkar ERITSIAN
1980
Armenian
Damianos PAPADOPOULOS
1989
Apohamed SAID
1993
Egyptian
Ioannis TSELEMPIS
1971
