Communicated on 4 January 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 58750/16
Tomas LIUTKEVIČIUS
against Lithuania
lodged on 28 September 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tomas Liutkevičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1981 and is detained in Butzbach, Germany. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Eswein-Bielauskas, a lawyer practising in Osnabrück.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2015 the applicant complained about his conditions of detention in Prison Hospital. He complained of insufficient space in the hospital wards and that he had not been issued with razors. On 29 January 2016 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court awarded him compensation in respect of his suffering from insufficient personal space but held that he had not been issued with razors only while he had been in solitary confinement, and that this had been in accordance with domestic law.
Before the first-instance court delivered its decision, on 20 January 2016 the applicant asked Vilnius Correctional Facility, where he was serving his prison sentence, to issue him with shampoo, shower gel, razors, shaving cream, toothpaste, a toothbrush, a sponge, scissors, envelopes, postal stamps, notebooks, pens, glue, a ruler and vitamin tablets.
On 18 February 2016 Vilnius Correctional Facility replied that in accordance with domestic rules, convicted inmates received two kinds of soap and toilet paper every month and shower soap each time before showering. Other hygiene products and stationery were not issued, but inmates could purchase these products with their own money.
Afterwards, the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 29 January 2016.
On 27 April 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant had asked for the renewal of the time-limit in respect of lodging an appeal. He had submitted that he had missed it because his bank account had been frozen by a bailiff and that he had consequently been unable to buy postal stamps and envelopes, and that the administration of correctional facility had not issued him with pens and envelopes. The court furthermore noted that the applicant had missed the time-limit by three days; however, it held that although the applicant’s freedom of movement had been restricted but as regards the applicant’s wish to have stationery, he had not been diligent enough. The court also noted that under domestic law convicted inmates had to pay for postage for letters sent and that the administration of a correctional facility was not obliged to provide convicted inmates with stationery. The court ruled that the applicant could have made sure that he had stationery in time to send the appeal.
The applicant lodged another appeal, also asking for the time-limit for lodging it to be renewed. He submitted that he had not been able to anticipate the outcome of the proceedings before the court of first instance and that he had not been able to prepare his appeal before he knew the decision of the court of first instance.
On 24 August 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court observed that the time-limits set under the relevant provisions of domestic law obliged a person to promptly react to violations of his or her rights and interests. In the present case, the applicant had delayed lodging an appeal and had thus missed the time-limit for subjective reasons that could not be deemed important enough to justify the renewal the time-limit for him to lodge an appeal. The applicant’s request was accordingly rejected.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 127 § 1 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings provides that the decisions of the regional courts can be appealed against within fourteen days of the issuance of the relevant decision of the first-instance court. Article 127 § 2 provides that if the time-limit for lodging an appeal was missed, then upon the request of the applicant it can be renewed if it was missed for important reasons.
Article 100 § 7 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences provides that convicted inmates have to pay postage expenses in respect of their suggestions, requests, petitions and claims.
Order no. 1R-139 of 9 June 2004, approved by the Minister of Justice, provides that convicted inmates serving their sentences in correctional facilities should be provided with 200 grams of washing soap, 100 grams of toilet soap and one roll of toilet paper every month. They are also to be provided with 30 grams of shower soap each time they go to shower.
COMPLAINTS
Without directly invoking Article 6 § 1 the applicant alleges that the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility refused to provide him with stationery and that, as a result, he missed the time-limit for lodging an appeal.
He also complains under Article 8 that his right to respect for his correspondence was breached because the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility refused to provide him with pencils, pens, envelopes and postal stamps.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the authorities’ refusal to provide the applicant with stationery result in a restriction that impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was there a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the refusal of the authorities to provide him with stationery (see Cotleţ v. Romania, no. 38565/97, § 61, 3 June 2003, compare and contrast A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, § 91, 29 January 2002)?
The parties are requested to provide all relevant information concerning applicant’s account, i. e. the details about its arrest and information, whether the applicant could use any other means to buy stationery.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy