4420/18

Plný text

THIRD SECTION CASE OF GEORGANTZIAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Application no. 4420/18) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 July 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Georgantzias and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 January 2018.

2. The applicants were represented by Ms E.-L. Koutra, lawyer practising in Athens.

3. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention in Larissa prison. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Striking out of the complaints lodged by the APPLICANTS A. Kolonias, S. Meletis, A. Papantoniou, N.A. Soneara and F.A. Udochukwu 6.  By a letter dated 3 October 2025, sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the applicants were requested to inform the Court of any important factual developments in their case that may have taken place since their last correspondence with the Court. They were notified that their reply should be accompanied by a recent detention certificate for all applicants and any other relevant documents. The applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that if the requested information was not received within the indicated time-limit, the Court may conclude that the applicants no longer wished to pursue their application and decide to strike it from its list of cases. In her reply to that request sent on 23 January 2026, the representative did not provide any information regarding the applicants, A. Kolonias, S. Meletis, A. Papantoniou, N.A. Soneara and F.A. Udochukwu, indicated under nos. 4 and 6-9 in the appended table, nor she submitted any proof that she was still in contact with them.

7. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part lodged by the applicants indicated under nos. 4 and 6-9 in the appended table.

8. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list with respect to these applicants. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION 9.  The remaining applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention in the Larissa prison. Applicant A. Maggafas also complained that he had been kept together with convicted prisoners. Admissibility 10.  The Government submitted that applicant G. Georgiantzias, indicated under no. 1 in the appendix, had lodged his application belatedly, as he had not been detained in the Larissa Prison when he had lodged his application with the Court and his detention had been regularly interrupted, with the previous periods having fallen outside the six-month time-limit. The Government maintained in this regard that the applicant’s detention in the Larissa Prison could not be regarded as a “continuing situation”. The applicant disagreed.

11. The Court notes that the applicant’s transfers to the Larissa Prison occurred at regular intervals throughout the entire duration of his detention, without any material change in the conditions of his detention in that prison at any given moment. Since the allegation of severe overcrowding remained the main characteristic of conditions with regard to all the dormitories in the Larissa Prison, the period of his detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” (see Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, §§ 24-25, 1 July 2010).

12. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be rejected.

13. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor it is inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 14.  The applicants maintained that they had been detained in conditions of severe overcrowding, having had less than 3 sq. m. of personal space. They shared dormitories of 23 sq. m with at least 8 detainees.

15. The Government argued that the overall conditions of the applicants’ detention did not cause suffering exceeding the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, the applicants were never detained with more than seven other persons in the same dormitory. However, the Government did not indicate the exact number of detainees.

16. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).

17. The Court has already examined the conditions of detention in the Larissa Prison in previous cases and found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Iatridis and Others v. Greece, nos. 25993/17, 32048/17 and 32053/17, 19 November 2020, Kalandia v. Greece, no. 48684/15, 6 October 2016, and Ali Cheema and Others v. Greece, no. 7059/14, 7 April 2016). Although the present case does not concern the same period as the aforementioned cases, the Government failed to rebut the applicants’ allegations concerning the general conditions of detention and did not adduce any evidence capable of demonstrating that those conditions had substantially improved, particularly as regards overcrowding. Nor did the Government substantiate their submissions concerning the number of detainees accommodated in each dormitory, having failed to produce any records showing the prison population on a dormitory-by-dormitory basis. In these circumstances, the absence of such evidence cannot be regarded as capable of refuting the applicants’ allegation that they were accommodated with at least eight other detainees in dormitories measuring 23 sq. m, thereby affording them less than 3 sq. m of personal space each. The above findings also coincide with the observations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding Larissa Prison (CPT/Inf (2014) 26), which provides a reliable basis for the Court’s assessment (see Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 66, 18 January 2005).

18. In the light of the applicants’ submissions, the statistical reports issued by the Greek Ministry of Citizen Protection indicating persistent overcrowding in the prison during the relevant period, and in the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, the Court accepts the applicants’ contention that Larissa Prison operated beyond its intended capacity throughout their detention, resulting in a manifest lack of personal space. It is further evident that such a deficiency in personal space cannot be regarded as short, occasional or minor within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Muršić, cited above, § 130).

19. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court concludes that the detention conditions in the Larissa Prison of the applicants, indicated under nos. 1-3 and 5 in the appended table, were inadequate in view of severe overcrowding. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

20. The aforementioned renders it unnecessary for the Court to consider separately the remaining complaints of the applicants concerning their detention in the Larissa Prison (see Igbo and Others v. Greece, no. 60042/13, § 46, 9 February 2017). remaining complaints 21.  The remaining applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy with respect to their Article 3 complaints.

22. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

23. Finally, the remaining applicants raised other complaints under various Convention provisions about the very fact of their detention, as well as about the quality of the medical care in the Larissa Prison.

24. The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

25. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 26.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Muršić, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award to the applicants, listed under nos. 1-3 and 5 in the appended table, the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

27. The Court also considers it reasonable to award the same applicants the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) jointly for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in the part lodged by the applicants, A. Kolonias, S. Meletis, A. Papantoniou, N.A. Soneara and F.A. Udochukwu, indicated under nos. 4 and 6-9 in the appended table; Declares the complaints of the remaining applicants raised under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of their detention in the Larissa Prison admissible, finds that it is no necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention and dismisses the remainder of these applicants’ complaints as inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the detention of the applicants, indicated under nos. 1-3 and 5 in the appended table, in severely overcrowded conditions of the Larissa Prison; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Larissa Prison; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, listed under nos. 1-3 and 5 in the appended table, within three months: the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable; EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 July 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Applicant’s name Year of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Specific grievances Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]

1. Georgios GEORGANTZIAS 1984 Larissa Prison 16/01/2017-28/02/2017, 18/04/2017-30/06/2017, 09/10/2017-03/11/2017, 20/11/2017-05/12/2017, 26/02/2018-03/04/2018, 16/05/2018-21/05/2018, 07/12/2018-17/12/2018, 28/12/2018-01/04/2019, 09/05/2019-28/06/2019, 02/12/2019 -13/12/2019 1 year and 13 days overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 5,100 2. Georgios BITSANIS 1978 Larissa Prison 13/06/2016-22/03/2019 2 years and 9 months and 10 days 10,600 3. Serkan KARAKUS 1986 Larissa Prison 31/05/2017-07/02/2021 3 years and 8 months and 8 days 12,500 4. Athanasios KOLONIAS 1980 Larissa Prison 23/11/2015 -01/02/2019 3 years and 2 months and 10 days N/A 5. Anastasios MAGGAFAS 1978 Larissa Prison 26/04/2017-22/08/2017 3 months and 28 days 2,100 6. Sotirios MELETIS 1975 Larissa Prison 17/09/2015-02/04/2018 2 years and 6 months and 17 days N/A 7. Apostolos PAPANTONIOU 1971 Larissa Prison 14/11/2017-19/12/2017 1 month and 6 days N/A 8. Naser-Ali SONEARA 1987 Larissa Prison 24/07/2014-19/04/2018 3 years and 8 months and 27 days N/A 9. Francis-Anayo UDOCHUKWU 1978 Larissa Prison 08/05/2014 -26/03/2018 3 years and 10 months and 19 days N/A

1. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.