Communicated on 2 May 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 27603/15
Indrek JATSÕŠÕN
against Estonia
lodged on 1 June 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Indrek Jatsõšõn, is an Estonian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Viljandi. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Agarjova, a lawyer practising in Tartu.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the case file, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events at issue, the applicant was serving a sentence for robbery and violence against a public official in Tartu Prison.
On 14 May 2013 the applicant was granted permission for prison leave to attend his grandmother’s funeral in Tarvastu, Viljandi County, which is located 80 km from Tartu Prison.
On 15 May 2013 the applicant was to be transferred to the cemetery in Tarvastu, Viljandi County. He was handcuffed and shackled with chains attached to a chain around his waist (joined shackles). He was placed in a prisoner transport van, in an individual compartment which was furnished with a bench and which, according to the applicant, measured between 0.51–0.7 m2. There was just enough space for his legs to fit when he was sitting. There were no seatbelts and there were no handles that the applicant could hold onto to keep his balance while handcuffed and shackled with joined shackles. According to the applicant, he had been in the van within the prison precincts under these conditions for twenty minutes. The van was driven for 5-10 minutes, during which it turned three corners and the van together with the applicant swayed from side to side. He considered these conditions to be inhuman, they had made him feel degraded and also fear for his life and health. At the gates, the applicant felt that he could not stand these conditions, and he refused to be transferred. He was taken back to his cell, and he missed his grandmother’s funeral.
On 4 December 2013 the applicant filed a complaint against Tartu Prison with the Tartu Administrative Court and requested 7500 EUR in compensation for unlawful harm caused to him. Inter alia, the applicant invoked Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicant claimed that his life had been endangered by the conditions of transport. The applicant also claimed to have suffered psychological trauma because he had been forced to forego attending his grandmother’s funeral as he feared for his life due to his transport in inhuman conditions. According to the applicant, Tartu Prison had also caused him grief from loss, concern, stress and worry. Citing M.S. v. Russia (no. 8589/08, 10 July 2014), the applicant noted that according to the case-law of the Court, prisoners must have a minimum of 0.8 m2 personal space upon transportation.
On 11 March 2014 Tartu Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. With regard to the conditions in the transport van, the first instance court noted that the applicant had refused to be transferred and therefore had never been subjected to the conditions described. The court held that there had been no unlawful action by Tartu Prison which could have caused the applicant harm, and that the applicant had refused to go on prison leave of his own free will.
On 9 September 2014 the applicant filed an appeal against the first instance judgment with the Tartu Court of Appeal.
On 7 October 2014 Tartu Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The appeal court noted that the applicant had not proved any potential harm arising from the conditions of transport. The applicant had stated that the prospect of transfer in the conditions described had caused him fear, stress and worry that he would be killed. However, since he had foregone the transfer, then any fear, stress or worry must also have dissipated. There had also been no unlawful action by the authorities which could have caused him harm. Since the applicant had foregone transfer to his grandmother’s funeral, he could not claim compensation for something that might have happened or occurred or any trauma that might have been involved if he had gone on prison leave, because this had not happened. The fact that he had been in the transfer van which did not leave the precincts of the prison did not give him any ground for compensation for damage.
On 11 February 2015 the Supreme Court denied the applicant leave to appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the conditions of his transport during prison leave (use of handcuffs, shackles and joined shackles, transport in a small individual compartment without seatbelts or handles) and the fact that he was forced to forego attending his grandmother’s funeral due these conditions of transport amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment due to the conditions of transport in a prison van, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide photos and/or drawings of the transport van together with data regarding the conditions of transport, such as:
- the size of the individual compartment
- the existence of a window in the compartment
- the conditions of ventilation in the compartment.
2. Did the fact that the applicant was only provided with the means of transport described above to go on prison leave to attend his grandmother’s funeral amount to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy