5.  The first applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Vilnius. The second applicant was born in 1982 and is detained in Pravieniškės. 6.  The first applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 17 March 2008. 7.  On 27 July 2012 he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed 74,690 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 21,630 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8.  On 8 November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim. It firstly held that the time‑limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant’s claim concerning the period before 27 July 2009 as time‑barred. The court then examined various documents provided by the prison authorities and found that, during the remaining period, for about one year and seven months the size of the personal space afforded to the applicant had not complied with the domestic requirements (until 11 May 2010 the minimum personal space in prison cells stipulated by domestic law was 5 sq. m, and from 11 May 2010 it was 3.6 sq. m). 9.  The court also found, on the basis of reports submitted by domestic public healthcare authorities, that the temperature and the amount of natural light in some of the cells in which the applicant had been detained had not complied with domestic hygiene norms. However, it dismissed as unproved the applicant’s allegations that the cells had been dilapidated and that there had been parasites and rodents. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. 10.  The applicant was awarded LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 434) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, but on 20 May 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety. 12.  The second applicant was detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility from 8 June 2012 to 5 February 2016. 13.  On 4 October 2013 he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded dormitory‑type rooms. He claimed LTL 11,000 (approximately EUR 3,200) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 14.  On 12 March 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim. The court found that for seventy‑nine days the applicant had had 2.9 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic requirement of 3.1 sq. m applicable to dormitory‑type rooms. It also found that for eighteen days, when the applicant had been kept under stricter disciplinary regime, he had had 3.34 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic requirement of 3.6 sq. m applicable to such cells. 15.  However, the court noted that the applicant had been allowed to move freely around the correctional facility during the day, except when he had been serving disciplinary penalties, and that the material conditions of his detention had been appropriate. It also considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. The court therefore dismissed the applicant’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages. 16.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and on 15 May 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld in part his appeal. It found that, according to the applicant’s submissions which the administration of the correctional facility had failed to refute, for 274 days he had had between 2.33 and 3.04 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the relevant domestic requirements. The court considered that, despite the fact that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and that the material conditions of detention had been appropriate, there were grounds to award him non-pecuniary damages. The applicant was awarded EUR 130.