Dougoz v Greece (Application 40907/98) [2001] ECHR 213

A Syrian national detained in Greece pending expulsion was held for seventeen months in severely overcrowded police detention facilities with inadequate sleeping and sanitary facilities. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 3 (degrading treatment) and Article 5 (unlawful detention and lack of judicial review).

Facts

The applicant, Mohamed Dougoz, a Syrian national, had been recognised as a refugee under the UNHCR mandate in 1989. Following criminal convictions in Greece, a court ordered his expulsion in 1997. Upon release from prison on licence, he was placed in police detention pending expulsion, first at the Drapetsona detention centre and later at the Alexandras Avenue police headquarters in Athens. He was detained for approximately seventeen months until his expulsion to Syria in December 1998.

Conditions of Detention

The applicant alleged that the Drapetsona detention centre was severely overcrowded, with sometimes up to one hundred people in twenty cells. His cell contained no beds, mattresses, sheets, or blankets. Sanitary facilities were insufficient, hot water was scarce, and there was no fresh air, natural daylight, or exercise yard. Conditions at Alexandras Avenue were similar, though with some natural light and air.

Issues

The Court considered three main issues:

• Whether the conditions of detention amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention
• Whether the detention was lawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
• Whether the applicant had access to judicial review of his detention as required by Article 5 § 4

Judgment

Article 3 – Degrading Treatment

The Court found that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to fall within Article 3. The Court noted that the Government did not deny the applicant’s allegations concerning overcrowding and lack of beds or bedding. The allegations were corroborated by a 1994 CPT report on the Alexandras Avenue facility.

“In the light of the above, the Court considers that the conditions of detention of the applicant at the Alexandras police headquarters and the Drapetsona detention centre, in particular the serious overcrowding and absence of sleeping facilities, combined with the inordinate length of the period during which he was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.”

Article 5 § 1 – Lawfulness of Detention

The Court examined whether the detention had sufficient legal basis in domestic law. The applicant’s expulsion was ordered by a court rather than by administrative decision, and the ministerial decision governing detention applied only to administrative expulsions. The detention was based merely on an opinion of the deputy public prosecutor.

“The Court does not consider that the opinion of a senior public prosecutor – concerning the applicability by analogy of a ministerial decision on the detention of persons facing administrative expulsion – constituted a ‘law’ of sufficient ‘quality’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law.”

Article 5 § 4 – Right to Judicial Review

The Court found that the applicant’s requests to Ministers were appeals to discretionary leniency, not effective remedies. The Piraeus court’s decision of 11 May 1998 failed to rule on the applicant’s detention claim.

“It follows that the domestic legal system did not afford the applicant an opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion determined by a national court, as required by Article 5 § 4.”

Implications

This case establishes important principles regarding detention conditions and procedural safeguards for immigration detainees. It confirms that prolonged detention in overcrowded facilities without adequate sleeping arrangements can constitute degrading treatment under Article 3. The judgment reinforces that detention must have a clear legal basis of sufficient quality, and that opinions of prosecutors cannot substitute for proper legislation. States must provide effective judicial remedies enabling detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention pending deportation.

Verdict: The Court unanimously held that there had been violations of Article 3 (degrading treatment), Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention), and Article 5 § 4 (lack of judicial review) of the Convention. Greece was ordered to pay the applicant 5,000,000 Greek drachmas for non-pecuniary damage and costs.

Source: Dougoz v Greece (Application 40907/98) [2001] ECHR 213