SECOND SECTION
CASE OF LUKOŠIN v. LITHUANIA
(Application no. 25059/20)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
18 January 2022
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lukošin v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 25059/20) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 June 2020 by a Lithuanian national, Mr Andrej Lukošin, born in 1973 and detained in Pravieniškės (“the applicant”);
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning conditions of detention to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns alleged inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention. 2. The applicant was detained at Pravieniškės Correctional Facility. The present application concerns the periods of his detention from 18 June to 18 August 2018 (hereinafter “the first period of detention”) and from 5 September to 3 October 2018 (hereinafter “the second period of detention”). 3. As for the first period of detention, the applicant complained to the administrative courts that he had been kept in overcrowded dormitory-type rooms. The courts found that for forty-seven days he had had 2.97 square metres of personal space, in breach of the relevant domestic regulations. 4. As for the second period of detention, the applicant complained that he had been kept in disciplinary cells which had been dilapidated and not properly lit. The administrative courts upheld those complaints and found that the relevant domestic regulations had been breached during that entire period (twenty-nine days). 5. In both sets of proceedings, the courts considered that the acknowledgment of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and did not award monetary compensation. 6. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in inadequate conditions and that he had not been awarded any compensation.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation