Communicated on 9 October 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 74452/13
Romanas DARDANSKIS against Lithuania
and 17 other applications
(see table appended)
The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. Their details are provided in the annex.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
All the applicants have been convicted to life imprisonment (or initially to death penalty, which later was changed to life imprisonment) and serve their sentences either in Lukiškės Prison or in Pravieniškės Correctional Institution.
In 2016 the applicant Mr H. Daktaras (case no. 48303/16) asked Lukiškės Prison administration to be taken to an outside hospital to a dentist, or that a dentist would come to prison, so that the applicant could have dental implants. He explained that the prison doctor could repair teeth, but he did not provide implants. The applicant stated that he was ready to pay for the services of the dentist. The prison administration refused the applicant’s request. He then lodged an appeal with the Prison Department, but was unsuccessful.
By a decision of 6 February 2017 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s appeal. Relying, inter alia, on the Court’s judgment in V.D. v. Romania (no. 7078/02, 16 February 2010), the administrative court held that Lukiškės Prison administration and the Prison Department had given only formal replies, without having examined whether the applicant’s condition required dental implants. The administrative court ordered Lukiškės Prison administration to make sure that the applicant’s medical condition was properly examined and, if necessary, to provide him with the possibility to obtain services of a doctor so that he could obtain dental implants.
It transpires from the documents in the Court’s possession that Lukiškės Prison administration appealed against the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s decision.
B. Relevant law and practice as regards life sentences
As regards life prisoners, the domestic law and practice is set out in detail in Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, §§ 61-110, 23 May 2017). The relevant European, international and comparative law, as well as the extracts from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reports concerning life prisoners’ situation in Lithuania, are set out in paragraphs 111-119 of the said judgment.
COMPLAINTS
All the applicants complain that their life sentences are not irreducible and therefore are incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant Mr Henrikas Daktaras (case no. 48303/16) also complains about lack of proper medical care in Lukiškės Prison, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He is dissatisfied that he could not obtain dental implants inside or outside that prison, notwithstanding him being ready to bear the costs.
COMMON QUESTION
In respect of each applicant, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the fact that their life sentences are not reducible (see Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, §§ 180-183, 23 May 2017)?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION
As regards the applicant H. Daktaras (case no. 48303/16), has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant not being able to receive dental care (dental implants) while serving the sentence in Lukiškės Prison (see Xiros v. Greece, no. 1033/07, §§ 73, 75 and 76, 9 September 2010; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 102-104, 114 and 115, 15 June 2010, and Bagdonavičius v. Lithuania, no. 41252/12, §§ 69-75, 19 April 2016)?
The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of the administrative case regarding the applicant’s dental care and whether Lukiškės Prison administration had complied with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s ruling of 6 February 2017.
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Complaints to be communicated
74452/13
22/11/2013
Romanas DARDANSKIS
23/06/1968
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
583/14
25/12/2013
Aleksandr MARKIN
27/07/1980
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
23542/14
17/03/2014
Ričardas BARATINSKAS
23/09/1964
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
24971/14
20/03/2014
Viktor SMIRNOV
13/11/1968
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
32519/14
15/04/2014
Vygantas RAILA
27/02/1968
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
38916/14
19/05/2014
Rolandas PALUKAITIS
13/04/1973
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
Andrejus VAVILOVAS
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
46591/14
17/06/2014
Gintaras RAILA
22/01/1966
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
Ričardas MIRONOVAS
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
46640/14
17/06/2014
Audrius SINKEVIČIUS
19/03/1978
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
49765/14
01/07/2014
Darius AMBRASAS
08/01/1973
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
60038/14
08/08/2014
Andrej PAVLOV
02/06/1977
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
14696/15
19/03/2015
Rimas BRAŽINSKAS
23/06/1972
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
16039/15
24/03/2015
Ričardas KARENDA
09/08/1974
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
19405/15
26/03/2015
Jevgenij PAVLOV
04/05/1974
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
23905/15
11/05/2015
Rolandas SVIRBUTAVIČIUS
01/02/1971
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
24187/15
06/05/2015
Eugenijus ŠEDYS
29/07/1960
Pravieniškės Correctional Institution, Pravieniškės
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
48303/16
12/08/2016
Henrikas DAKTARAS
12/12/1957
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
Vytautas SIRVYDIS
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
2. Article 3 – lack of appropriate health care in prison
51216/16
16/08/2016
Audrius ANDRUŠAITIS
09/03/1968
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
33339/17
24/04/2017
Algimantas VERTELKA
13/02/1961
Lukiškės Prison, Vilnius
1. Absence of review (by the executive or the court) of the applicant’s life imprisonment sentence, so that that sentence could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy