4.  The first applicant, Mr Tamašauskas, was born in 1971. The second applicant, Mr Radzevičius, was born in 1977. They are both detained in Vilnius. 5.  The first applicant was detained in Šiauliai Remand Prison from 28 September 2012 until 4 September 2014. 6.  On an unspecified date he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he had been detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed 48,493 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 9 January 2015 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim. It found that during the period under consideration the applicant had spent 629 days in Šiauliai Remand Prison and that during the remaining periods he had been transported outside of that prison. During those 629 days, he had between 1.72 and 16.96 sq. m of personal space. The court noted that the documents provided to it by the administration of the prison did not indicate the exact amount of personal space available to the applicant in each cell. It therefore gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and held that during the entire period of 629 days his right to adequate personal space (3.6 sq. m, under the domestic law applicable to prison cells) might have been breached. The court also noted that parts of the cells had been occupied by furniture and that the space in which the applicant had been able to move had thus been even smaller. 8.  However, the court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that the conditions in the cells had been unsanitary on the basis of reports submitted by domestic public healthcare authorities. It also held that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions in which he had been detained. 9.  The applicant was awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 10.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, but on 6 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety. 11.  The second applicant was detained in Alytus Correctional Facility from 22 November 2012 until 17 September 2014. 12.  On an unspecified date he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he had been detained in overcrowded and unsanitary dormitory-type rooms. He claimed EUR 16,611 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 13.  On 12 October 2015 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim. It found that from 22 November 2012 until 11 April 2013 the applicant had had 2.96 sq. m of personal space, and that from 11 April 2013 to 13 August 2014 he had had 3.03 sq. m of personal space, in violation of the domestic requirement of 3.1 sq. m, applicable to dormitory-type rooms. During the remainder of his detention the personal space available to the applicant had complied with the domestic requirements. 14.  On the basis of reports submitted by the domestic public healthcare authorities, the court held that the temperature, ventilation and humidity in the rooms had complied with the relevant domestic requirements, and dismissed the applicant’s complaints in that regard. However, it observed that the administration of the correctional facility had not submitted any documents refuting the applicant’s allegation that the natural light in the rooms had been insufficient, and found in the applicant’s favour. The court also noted that during the relevant period the applicant had sought medical help for back pain, headaches, mood swings and insomnia; the court considered that those ailments might have been related to the unsuitable conditions of his detention. 15.  However, the court considered that the reduction in the minimum personal space available to the applicant had been minor and that it had been compensated for by his ability to move freely around the correctional facility and by the various leisure activities available there. It therefore held that the finding of a violation was sufficient, and dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages. 16.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, but on 14 October 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety.