KOUTSOSTAVROS A OSTATNÍ proti Řecku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31023/19
Konstantinos KOUTSOSTAVROS against Greece
and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 February 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Diana Kovatcheva, 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 in applications nos. 39224/19, 15722/22, 22275/22, 22458/22 and 42462/22,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

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 with the exception of application no. 31023/19, 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.

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

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

2. Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and right to an effective remedy)

In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the complaints about the applicants’ conditions of detention 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 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, Chatzivasiliadis v. Greece (dec.), no. 51618/12, §§ 29-34, 26 November 2013; and Zabelos and Others v. Greece, no. 1167/15, §§ 50 and 54, 17 May 2018,).

The applicants in the present cases were released from prison on various dates prior to lodging their application with the Court or on the date of the introduction of the applications to the Court (see appended table for the relevant information). It follows that when they lodged their applications with the Court the applicants were no longer detained under the conditions of which they complained to the Court. 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.

In view of the above, the Court 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.

Bearing in mind the considerations made above, the complaint under Article 13 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 12 March 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)