THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NIKITIN v. ESTONIA
(Application no. 49257/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
3 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nikitin v. Estonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Peeter Roosma,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 49257/22) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 October 2022 by an Estonian national, Mr Vladimir Nikitin (“the applicant”), who was born in 1968, is detained in Viru Prison and, having been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr J. Valdma, a lawyer practising in Tallinn;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the use of a glass partition during short-term meetings in prison to the Estonian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Tim Kolk, Representative of Estonia to the European Court of Human Rights, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The complaint concerns eight short-term meetings that the applicant, a life prisoner in Viru Prison, had with his wife and her son between 2 June 2018 and 19 December 2019, during which the applicant was separated from his visitors by a glass partition and could talk to them only over an intercom system. 2. In November 2020 the applicant, considering that the separation by a glass partition during the meetings had violated his rights, lodged an application with the Viru Prison authorities for compensation in relation to those meetings. The prison authorities dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had never asked for meetings to be held without the glass partition. That would have been a more appropriate remedy, as well as being required under the State Liability Act (riigivastutuse seadus). The prison authorities also referred to general security considerations relating to short-term meetings (without linking these to the applicant’s personal situation) and to alternative means of communication that were available. They noted that section 31(21) of the Internal Prison Rules (vangla sisekorraeeskiri) provided that in certain situations prison authorities had discretion to allow meetings without a glass partition (without indicating that the applicant’s circumstances could have fallen into any of the categories listed in the relevant provision). 3. In subsequent submissions before the Tartu Administrative Court and the Tartu Court of Appeal (described further in paragraphs 4 and 5 below), the Viru Prison authorities stated that the applicant’s situation did not fit under any of the exceptions provided for in section 31(21) of the Internal Prison Rules. 4. On 31 May 2021 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of the prison authorities. It referred to alternative means available to the applicant for maintaining contact and found that the interference with the applicant’s rights had not been sufficiently severe to warrant compensation. The court considered, as part of its analysis of the constitutionality of the measure, that the requirement set out in section 31(2) of the Internal Prison Rules that a glass partition be used during short-term meetings was proportionate to the need to ensure prison security, and added that section 31(21) of the Rules provided for exceptions from that requirement. The applicant appealed. 5. On 28 February 2022 the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. The court considered, referring to alternative means of maintaining contact and the applicant’s own passivity in addressing the issue at hand, that the interference with his rights had not been particularly severe. The court noted that the applicant had never complained about the set-up of the visits and had never requested that the visits be organised in a room without a glass partition. He had thus failed to use a primary remedy (esmane õiguskaitsevahend) – namely an application to oblige the administrative body to either adopt a certain administrative decision or to take administrative measures (kohustamiskaebus) – which had been a prerequisite for lodging a claim for compensation. However, the court admitted that the above-mentioned remedy might not have been effective in preventing the interference with respect to each meeting request. Lastly, the Tartu Court of Appeal noted that it did not consider the use of the glass partition to be unlawful (õigusvastane), referring, inter alia, to the general dangerousness of the applicant. Even presuming that the use of the glass partition had been unlawful, awarding monetary compensation would not have been warranted in any event. 6. On 7 June 2022 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal on points of law brought by the applicant. 7. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal to allow him to have short-term meetings without a glass partition.

Outcome for Article 8: violation