SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
 
(Applications nos. 23226/16 and 6 others)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
29 January 2019
 
 
FINAL
 
24/06/2019
 
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The case of Mr Nikitin
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
B. The case of Mr Villems
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
C. The case of Mr Karp
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
D. The case of Mr Jeret
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
E. The case of Mr Savva
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
F. The case of Mr Kaziks
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
G. The case of Mr Tarasovski
The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions
H. General conditions of detention in Tallinn Prison
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Relevant domestic procedural law
1. Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Halduskohtumenetluse seadustik)
2. Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus)
3. Administrative Procedure Act (Haldusmenetluse seadus)
4. State Liability Act (Riigivastutuse seadus), as in force since 31 August 2011
5. Treatment Plan (Täitmisplaan) as in force until 15 October 2012
B. Relevant domestic law on conditions of detention
1. Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus)
2. Regulation no. 72 of the Minister of Justice on the Internal Prison Rules (Vangla sisekorraeeskiri)
C. Relevant domestic practice
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
A. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”)
B. European Prison Rules
 
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
1. Preliminary remarks
2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
3. Victim status
4. The complaints concerning having between 3 and 4 square metres of personal space in Tallinn Prison in respect of Mr Kaziks, Mr Karp and Mr Savva
5. Conclusion as to admissibility
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
3. Victim status of Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems, Mr Jeret, Mr Kaziks, Mr Tarasovski and Mr Savva
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
B. General principles
C. Application of those principles to the present cases
1. Application of the statutory time-limit for lodging a complaint for compensation in respect of Mr Nikitin, Mr Kaziks and Mr Tarasovski
2. Effectiveness of the compensatory remedy with regard to the redress afforded in the cases of Mr Nikitin, Mr Villems and Mr Tarasovski
3. Length of the proceedings in respect of Mr Jeret
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

Outcome for Article 13: violation