Умови ув’язнення у в’язницях Литви у світлі практики ЄСПЛ

За останні роки питання переповненння, незадовільних умов утримання ув’язнених і відсутності певних видів діяльності за межами камер раніше були відображені в численних рішеннях ЄСПЛ, винесених проти Литви:

переповненість в’язниць[1];
напівзруйновані приміщення[2];
недостатня приватність при користуванні санітарними приміщеннями[3];
майже цілодобове утримання ув’язнених у камерах[4];
відсутність певних видів діяльності поза камерою[5];
комахи та паразити в камерах[6];
низька якість медичного обслуговування[7].

Recently, the issues of overcrowding, unsatisfactory conditions of detention and the lack of the useful activities outside the cells have been previously reflected in numerous ECtHR judgments against Lithuania:

overcrowding in prisons[8];
dilapidated facilities[9];
insufficient privacy when using sanitary facilities[10];
locking up prisoners in their cells for twenty-three hours a day[11];
absence of certain out-of-cell activities[12];
insects and parasites in prison cells[13];
bad quality of the medical treatment[14].

[1] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018; Stemplys and Debesys v. Lithuania, applications № 71024/13 and 71974/13, judgment 17 October 2017; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019; Vaidelys v. Lithuania, application № 21237/19, judgment 07 September 2021

[2] Ozarovskij and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 17774/20 and 5 others, judgment 01 March 2022; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019.

[3] Einikis and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 43277/20 and 4 others, judgment 01.03.2022

[4] Einikis and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 43277/20 and 4 others, judgment 01.03.2022; Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019.

[5] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018

[6] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018

[7] Urbonavičius v. Lithuania, application № 549/17, judgment 21 May 2019.

[8] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018; Stemplys and Debesys v. Lithuania, applications № 71024/13 and 71974/13, judgment 17 October 2017; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019; Vaidelys v. Lithuania, application № 21237/19, judgment 07 September 2021

[9] Ozarovskij and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 17774/20 and 5 others, judgment 01 March 2022; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019.

[10] Einikis and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 43277/20 and 4 others, judgment 01.03.2022

[11] Einikis and Others v. Lithuania, applications № 43277/20 and 4 others, judgment 01.03.2022; Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018; Steponavičius v. Lithuania, application № 6982/18, judgment 17 December 2019.

[12] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018

[13] Michno v. Lithuania, application № 29826/15, judgment 04 December 2018

[14] Urbonavičius v. Lithuania, application № 549/17, judgment 21 May 2019.