Communicated on 28 September 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 10992/14
Tomas MILIUKAS
against Lithuania
lodged on 26 January 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tomas Miliukas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Druskininkai.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 November 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, requesting compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for overcrowding in Lukiškės Remand Prison from 7 June 2011 until 25 May 2012 and in respect of the alleged inadequate actions of the prison authorities during the fire in that institution on 5 January 2012. The applicant claimed that during the fire he had screamed for help but owing to the late actions of the prison authorities he had fallen into a coma that had lasted for several hours.
On 30 January 2013 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant had not had enough personal space for 268 days, ten evenings and three mornings. As for the fire, the court held that the applicant had been hospitalised from 7 January 2012 until 18 January 2012 for irritation of the respiratory system due to acute poisoning caused by the smoke of the fire. The applicant had been referred to a psychiatrist and had received medication. The court further held that the prison authorities had merely provided a general description of the actions of the relevant representatives of the prison during the fire and had not provided any information about the specific actions they had taken in order to immediately take the applicant out of the prison or about the first aid he had received. There was no information as to whether the applicant had known how to act during a fire. The court thus held that the fact that the applicant had been taken to hospital in a coma had proven that the authorities had failed to evacuate him on time. As a result, the applicant was awarded 10,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 2,896 euros (EUR)) in compensation.
The applicant and the authorities appealed. On 5 August 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the first-instance decision in respect of overcrowding but held that there was no information that the prison had breached the requirements for fire prevention or for evacuation of people. The court further held that the employees of the prison had been active in their response and thus no unlawful actions by the authorities had taken place. The court thus changed the first-instance decision and awarded the applicant LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 579) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards conditions of detention, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).
At the material time, Article 2 § 1 of the Law on Health-Care System provided that health was defined as a person’s or a community’s physical, spiritual and social well-being.
At the material time, Point 102 of the Internal Rules of Remand Prisons, approved by the Minister of Justice on 1 June 2009, provided that in a case of sudden life-threatening disease or accident, first aid for a detained person had to be provided immediately by the employees of the remand prison.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about degrading conditions as regards his detention.
He also complains, under Articles 2 and 3, about the fire in Lukiškės Remand Prison which resulted in his coma and of the issue of effective investigation of the fire and the prison employees’ actions during it.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicant still be considered a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the decisions by the domestic courts finding violations of his right not to be held in inhuman or degrading conditions (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 84-85 and 96, 8 December 2015) and awarding him compensation?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to his conditions of detention from 7 June 2011 until 25 May 2012 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016) and the fire in prison that had resulted in his coma (see, mutatis mutandis, Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012)?
3. Has the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, given the state of coma in which he was taken from Lukiškės Remand Prison to the hospital, did the State comply with its positive obligation under Article 2 to protect the applicant’s health, physical integrity and well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010, and Binişan v. Romania, no. 38438/05, § 52, 20 May 2014)?
4. Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the facts of the present case, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26984/05, §§ 60-62, 19 April 2012, and Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy