Published on 1 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 23206/24
Gentian ISUFI
against Greece
lodged on 16 August 2024
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is detained in Domokos Prison. On 18 July 2024, he started a hunger strike as a protest against the conditions of detention prevailing in that prison, and the announced amendments to the Penitentiary Code. The applicant’s hunger strike ended on 19 August 2024.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the conditions of his detention, and of the lack of medical care and supervision during his hunger strike. He alleges that the authorities did not show any interest in his health condition while on hunger strike and did not perform any medical examination.
Further, the applicant complains that he has no effective remedy at his disposal to complain of his medical state in the context of his hunger strike and of the conditions of his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Domokos Prison amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, 20 October 2016)?
2. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy regarding his complaint about the conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, can the domestic remedy enshrined in Article 6A of the Penitentiary Code (Law No. 2776/1999) be considered effective in this regard?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of adequate medical care of the applicant while on hunger strike, having particular regard to the applicant’s allegation that no due diligence was shown by the prison authorities (see Yakovlyev v. Ukraine, no. 42010/18, § 43, 8 December 2022, with further references)? In light of the applicant’s state of health, have the respondent Government fulfilled their obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to ensure that that the applicant’s health and well-being were adequately protected, including through the provision of the requisite medical assistance during the hunger strike and the follow-up treatment (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V)?
The parties are requested to provide further evidence related to the applicant’s medical treatment, such as copies of his complaints to the domestic authorities, responses to such complaints and a copy of his medical file maintained at Domokos Prison.
4. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy regarding his complaint about the lack of adequate medical care in the context of his detention including, in particular, during the period of his hunger strike, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Can the domestic remedies enshrined in Articles 6 and 6A of the Penitentiary Code (Law No. 2776/1999) and 567 (former Article 572) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 4620/2019) be considered effective in this regard (see also Vaden v. Greece, no. 35115/03, §§ 30-33, 29 March 2007, with further references, Tsivis v. Greece, no. 11553/05, §§ 18-20, 6 December 2007, with further references)?
The Government are requested to provide examples of the relevant domestic case-law in application of the remedies provided by virtue of Articles 6 and 6A of Law No. 2776/1999 and Article 567 of Law No. 4620/2019.