Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 29
April 2001
Peers v. Greece - 28524/95
Judgment 19.4.2001 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Conditions of detention on remand: violation
Article 6
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Absence of separate prison regime for remand prisoners: no violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for correspondence
Prisoners' correspondence: violation
Facts: The applicant, a British national, was arrested in Greece in August 1994 and transferred to Koridallos prison, where he was placed in the segregation unit due to his drug addiction. He declined a transfer to "Delta" wing, where he maintained there was a drug problem which he wished to avoid. He was subsequently transferred to "Alpha" wing, which was the best in the prison. He was convicted of drugs offences in July 1995. He complains about the conditions of his pre-trial detention, in particular in the segregation unit. A delegation of the European Commission of Human Rights visited the prison and essentially confirmed the applicant's description of the accommodation. A report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture also described similar conditions, and in particular found serious over-crowding with negative repercussions on conditions. The applicant's complaints include the following: the cell, which he shared with another inmate, was very small, the two beds barely leaving enough room to walk between them; it was very hot in summer, with no ventilation; there was one window in the ceiling, which did not open and was so dirty that little light came through; there was an electric light which was insufficient for reading; there was an Asian-type toilet with no screen or curtain; there was no sink in the cell and only one shower for nine cells holding up to three prisoners each. Conditions in Alpha wing were better, but still dirty and over-crowded. In general, there were shortages of blankets and toileteries in the prison. Furthermore, letters addressed to the applicant, including those from the Commission, were opened in his presence. The applicant was released and deported in June 1998.
Law: Article 3 – The applicant did not consent to being detained in the segregation unit, his refusal to be transferred to Delta wing being based on his desire to avoid contact with the drugs which it appears were illegally available there. The Court had regard to the Commission delegates’ findings, especially as to the size, lighting and ventilation of the applicant’s cell, elements which would not have changed between the time of the applicant’s detention and the delegates’ visit. The applicant could circulate freely in the segregation unit during the day, and although the unit and its exercise yard were small, this limited possibility of movement must have given some form of relief. Nevertheless, the applicant had to spend at least part of the evening and the entire night in his cell which, although built for one person, was occupied by two, essentially confining the occupants to their beds when the door was locked. Moreover, there was no ventilation in the cell, which could become exceedingly hot in summer. When the door was locked, it was necessary to use the Asian-type toilet, which was not separated from the rest of the cell. While there is no evidence that there was a positive intention of humiliating or debasing the applicant, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3, and the fact that the authorities have taken no steps to improve the objectively unacceptable conditions of the applicant’s detention denotes a lack of respect. The conditions complained of diminished his human dignity and created feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical or moral resistance. In sum, the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the segregation unit amounted to degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 2 – The Convention contains no provision providing for separate treatment of convicted and accused persons in prisons and Article 6(2) cannot be interpreted as having been violated on this basis.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 8 – The opening of the applicant's correspondence from the Commission constituted an interference which was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder or crime. However, there were no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, and the risk of the Commission’s envelopes being forged in order to smuggle prohibited material into the prison is so negligible that it must be discounted.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 5,000,000 drachmas (GRD) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy