Papadias and Others v. Greece

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55631/21 Georgios PAPADIAS against Greece and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 October 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President , Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Greek Government (“the Government”). In all the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the complaints about the applicants’ conditions of detention in Diavata Prison and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of such conditions are inadmissible for the reasons stated below.

In particular, the Government asked the Court to reject the applications on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on account of the applicants’ failure to lodge compensatory actions with the domestic courts based on Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code for the conditions of their detention.

The Court reiterates that as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the situation of a person who was detained under circumstances which he or she deemed contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and who apprised the Court after his or her release or transfer to another detention facility is different from the situation of an individual who is still in detention under the circumstances of which he or she complains. In particular as regards Greece, an action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code constitutes a purely compensatory remedy which allows the person concerned to seek and obtain redress for his or her conditions of detention in prison following release or transfer (see, for instance, Zabelos and Others v. Greece , no. 1167/15, §§ 50 and 54, 17 May 2018; Papadakis and Others v. Greece , no. 34083/13, § 40, 25 February 2016; and Chatzivasiliadis v. Greece (dec.), no. 51618/12, §§ 29-34, 26 November 2013; see also Tasios and Others v. Greece ([Committee] (dec.), nos. 70606/17 and 6 others, §§ 29-35, 26 May 2020)).

The Court notes that the applicants were released from prison or transferred to a different prison on various dates prior to lodging their applications (as set out in the appended table). It follows that when they lodged their applications with the Court the applicants were no longer detained under the conditions of which they complained. Furthermore, the applicants did not raise any substantiated complaints concerning the conditions of their detention in the subsequent detention facilities, about which they did not provide any specific information as to the circumstances of their own detention. In that regard, the applicants who were transferred to a different prison failed to substantiate that the conditions in the new detention facilities were essentially the same as those in the previous ones and that they constituted the “continuing situation”. Hence, by lodging their applications with the Court they did not seek to put an end to an ongoing violation, but to obtain a subsequent ruling on an alleged past violation on account of the conditions of their detention in prison and, if appropriate, to receive just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. Therefore, an action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code constituted a domestic remedy which should have been used by the applicants.

Bearing in mind the considerations made above, the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The Court further finds that the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and thus their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Facility of release or transfer

Release/transfer date

Other complaints under well-established case-law

55631/21

02/11/2021

Georgios PAPADIAS

1995

Moysidou Xanthippi

Thessaloniki

Diavata Prison

to Domokos Prison

22/10/2021

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

56822/21

16/11/2021

Slavco MIZOROV ILIEVSKI

1987

Kazanas Alexandros-Timotheos

Thessaloniki

Diavata Prison

03/11/2021

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

4185/22

28/02/2020

Nikolaos STAMBOLIDIS

1979

Pipertzi Ioanna

Thessaloniki

Diavata Prison

to Kassandra Agricultural Prison

25/11/2019

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention