5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Viljandi. 6.  At the time of the events at issue, the applicant was serving a prison sentence for robbery and violence against a prison official. According to the risk assessment contained in his individual management plan drawn up by Tartu Prison on 16 January 2013 (kinnipeetava individuaalne täitmiskava), the applicant had been punished five times for criminal acts and was assessed to be a danger to the public, prone to risks and impulsive. 7.  On 13 May 2013 the applicant requested prison leave to attend his grandmother’s funeral in Tarvastu, Viljandi County, which is located approximately 80 km from Tartu Prison. The applicant stated in his request that he was aware that the leave would entail him wearing handcuffs and that he would be accompanied by guards. 8.  Permission for prison leave under supervision (lühiajaline väljaviimine) was granted on 14 May 2013. The decision (käskkiri) made reference to the fact that the applicant was considered highly dangerous and had received several disciplinary punishments which were still in effect. The decision was accompanied by an order (korraldus) of the same date which detailed how the prison leave would be organised, specifying that the applicant had to be escorted by at least three prison officers and that, as a preventive measure, he had to wear both hand and ankle cuffs. 9.  On 15 May 2013 the applicant and his brother (also a prisoner in the same prison), were to be transported to the funeral service in the same prison van. The applicant signed a document about the prison escort regime (kinnipeetavale isikule lühiajalise väljaviimise raames kohaldatav saatmisrežiim) which explained the rules about being escorted, including the obligation to wear hand and ankle cuffs. At 9.30 a.m. he was placed in a single occupancy compartment of a prisoner transport van. It was a Volkswagen Crafter van used by the prison since October 2010, which had one four-person compartment and four single occupancy compartments. Each single occupancy compartment was at least 60 cm wide, 149 cm high and 85 cm long, with a floor area of 0.51 square metres. The compartment in which the applicant was placed was furnished with a plastic seat attached to the floor. There were no handles or seat belt. 10.  The prison van reached the vehicle access gate of the prison premises. The applicant then decided not to go to the funeral and was taken back to the prison approximately twenty minutes later. His brother was thereafter transported to the funeral at 10.02 a.m. and reached the cemetery at 10.57 a.m. 11.  On 9 September 2013 the applicant lodged a request with Tartu Prison, asking for compensation in the sum of 7,500 euros (EUR), claiming that the use of hand and ankle cuffs had been unjustified and that the prison authorities had wished to expose him to the public and to his family in such degrading circumstances. He added that the van compartment had been too small and without safety equipment, making him fear for his life. The applicant also alleged he had suffered psychological trauma because he had been forced to forego attending his grandmother’s funeral owing to the above-mentioned conditions. The prison dismissed his complaint. 12.  On 4 December 2013, repeating the same complaints as those detailed above, the applicant lodged a complaint against Tartu Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court. 13.  On 11 March 2014 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court referred to the legal basis for using hand and ankle cuffs and considered it justified. With regard to the conditions in the transport van, the court noted that the applicant had refused to be transferred and therefore had never been subjected to the conditions described. As the applicant had refused to go on prison leave of his own free will, no unlawful action could be attributed to Tartu Prison. The court considered it plausible that the applicant had decided not to attend the funeral because he had not wanted his relatives to have a bad impression of him. However, there was no sign that the prison authorities had particularly wanted to degrade him in front of his family by resorting to the use of hand and ankle cuffs. 14.  On 9 September 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment with the Tartu Court of Appeal. He claimed, inter alia, that there had been no reason to conclude that he would have been embarrassed to be in shackles in front of his family, and that the main reason he had decided not to go to the funeral had been the transport conditions. 15.  On 7 October 2014 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. Since the applicant had foregone being transferred to his grandmother’s funeral, there had been no unlawful act on the part of the prison authorities. As the transfer van had never left the precincts of the prison, he could not claim compensation for something that might have happened or for any trauma that might have occurred had he taken the prison leave. 16.  On 10 November 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, stating that he stood by the same submissions he had made to the lower courts. On 11 February 2015 the Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal on points of law.