This judgment, *Akin and Others v. Greece* (application no. 82379/17), concerns a group of applicants who alleged that their detention in Patras Prison violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to severe overcrowding and poor living conditions. The Court examined the claims of multiple applicants, ultimately finding that the Greek authorities failed to provide adequate personal space, falling below the minimum standards required by the Convention. While some applicants were removed from the case due to a lack of follow-up or failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court recognized the standing of the heirs of deceased applicants to pursue the claims. The judgment reaffirms the Court’s established jurisprudence regarding the state’s burden of proof in detention cases, specifically regarding the calculation of available square footage per inmate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the conditions constituted a violation of Article 3 and awarded non-pecuniary damages to the successful applicants.
**Structure and Provisions**
The decision follows the standard structure of a Committee judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. It begins with the procedural history, followed by a section on the “striking-out” of applicants who failed to maintain contact with the Court. It then addresses the “locus standi” of heirs, confirming that the moral dimension of Article 3 claims allows for the continuation of proceedings after an applicant’s death. The core of the judgment focuses on the merits of the Article 3 complaints, specifically the assessment of overcrowding. Compared to previous rulings on Patras Prison, this decision reinforces the Court’s consistent stance that the state must provide concrete evidence, such as floor plans, to refute claims of overcrowding; the absence of such evidence leads the Court to accept the applicants’ submissions.
**Key Provisions for Legal Application**
For practitioners, the following elements are particularly significant:
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment serves as a reminder that the government bears the burden of proving the actual living conditions in detention. If the state fails to produce primary evidence (e.g., floor plans or building documentation), the Court will rely on the applicants’ submissions, often corroborated by reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
* **Standing of Heirs:** The Court explicitly reiterated that the “moral dimension” of Article 3 cases is sufficient to grant legal heirs the right to pursue an application on behalf of a deceased relative, regardless of whether the underlying right is considered “transferable.”
* **Non-Exhaustion of Remedies:** The Court clarified that for applicants released prior to lodging their application, an action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Greek Civil Code is a mandatory domestic remedy. Failure to utilize this remedy results in the inadmissibility of the complaint.
* **Thresholds for Degrading Treatment:** The Court reaffirmed the *Muršić v. Croatia* standard, noting that personal space below 3 sq. m. is a strong indicator of a violation, and the state must provide precise data on the duration and occupancy levels to justify any exceptions.
**:** This decision is relevant to the broader context of human rights protections for detainees, including those in jurisdictions currently facing significant challenges in maintaining prison standards, such as Ukraine. The principles regarding the state’s burden of proof and the rights of heirs to seek justice for deceased relatives provide a clear framework that may be invoked in similar proceedings involving Ukrainian citizens or detention facilities.
