0
0
In this case, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the periods between 27 June 2015 and 6 December 2017 that the first applicant spent under either the punishment-cell regime or the locked isolation-cell regime. There has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the period between 1 June 2016 and 26 September 2017, which the second applicant spent under the punishment-cell regime.
| Subject Matter | Protracted solitary confinement through consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments in Viru Prison, Estonia. |
| Applicants | First applicant (Schmidt): received 28 disciplinary punishments (2015–2018), spending up to 566 days uninterrupted in a punishment cell. Second applicant (Šmigol): held in a punishment cell for 482 days practically without interruption (June 2016 – September 2017). |
| Key Legal Issue | Whether the consecutive and prolonged application of the punishment-cell regime, as a disciplinary measure, violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). |
| Domestic Outcome | Estonian courts found the 566-day and 482-day periods unlawful and awarded EUR 1,700 and EUR 1,500 respectively — sums the ECtHR later found unreasonably low. |
COURT’S ASSESSMENT
The Court found violations of Article 3 in respect of all periods of solitary confinement endured by both applicants. It applied a cumulative assessment, holding that even individually “lawful” periods of confinement — when viewed together — subjected the applicants to hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The 45-day statutory maximum became “practically worthless” once multiple punishments were consecutively enforced. The Court strongly criticised Viru Prison for using solitary confinement as a routine disciplinary response to refusal to work, rather than as a genuine measure of last resort.
The Court also found that the Estonian authorities failed to establish a meaningful system of periodic, proactive assessment of the applicants’ psychological capacity to endure long-term isolation. Rare access to a psychologist, combined with the absence of regular independent review of the measure’s continued justification, was deemed insufficient to meet Convention standards.
KEY PRINCIPLES AFFIRMED
Solitary confinement must be imposed only exceptionally and as a last resort, for the shortest possible period, with independent judicial oversight and regular monitoring of the prisoner’s mental and physical health (Nelson Mandela Rules; Rule 43, European Prison Rules; CPT Standards). Prolonged solitary confinement without adequate mental and physical stimulation is inherently harmful and is incompatible with Article 3 unless justified by compelling exceptional circumstances.
OUTCOME
Violation of Article 3 found in respect of all impugned periods for both applicants. Domestic compensation amounts were deemed unreasonably low; both applicants retained victim status under Article 34. The judgment reinforces that consecutive enforcement of disciplinary isolation — exceeding any meaningful limit — constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment regardless of each individual sanction’s formal lawfulness.
| Period | Days | Regime | National Court Assessment | ECtHR Assessment | Art. 3 Violation? |
| FIRST APPLICANT (Application nos. 3501/20 and 43128/21) – Schmidt | |||||
| 27 Jun – 4 Sep 2015 | 69 | Punishment-cell regime | Tartu Court of Appeal (21 May 2019): Lawful – period did not significantly exceed the 45-day statutory limit; applicant had 6-52 days under regular regime between periods. | Violation found as part of cumulative assessment of all periods 27 Jun 2015 – 6 Dec 2017. Domestic courts’ finding of lawfulness did not preclude an Art. 3 finding given the overall cumulative effect. | Yes (cumulative) |
| 23 Sep – 25 Oct 2015 | 33 | Locked isolation-cell regime (security measure; imposed after applicant threw bottle at guard) | Tartu Administrative Court (25 Oct 2019): Lawful – security measure distinct from disciplinary punishment; precautionary in nature; period below 45-day limit; applicant was under regular regime immediately before placement. | Violation found cumulatively. Court noted that even though locked isolation-cell regime was somewhat less strict, it still constituted solitary confinement (23 hrs/day in cell). The 33-day lock-up was directly followed by 30 days of punishment-cell regime, reducing effective break to only 19 days. | Yes (cumulative) |
| 26 Oct – 25 Nov 2015 | 30 | Punishment-cell regime | Tartu Court of Appeal (21 May 2019): Lawful – period below the 45-day limit; applicant able to spend reasonable number of days under regular regime between enforcement of separate punishments. | Violation found as part of cumulative assessment. Court noted that between Jun 2015 and May 2016, the applicant spent approximately 8 months out of 11 in solitary confinement. | Yes (cumulative) |
| 1 Dec 2015 – 4 Feb 2016 | 65 | Punishment-cell regime | Tartu Court of Appeal (21 May 2019): Lawful – although period slightly exceeded 45-day limit, court noted that the Imprisonment Act did not set an upper limit for consecutive enforcement of separate measures. Applicant repeatedly breached prison rules. | Violation found cumulatively. ECtHR expressed strong concerns that the 45-day domestic maximum became ‘practically worthless’ when multiple punishments were enforced consecutively, and that solitary confinement was not used as a last resort. | Yes (cumulative) |
| 11 Mar – 10 May 2016 | 60 | Punishment-cell regime | Tartu Court of Appeal (21 May 2019): Lawful. Applicant had access to social programmes (“Training on replacing aggressiveness”), was under medical supervision, had daily 1-hour outdoor walks, and was permitted telephone calls and correspondence. | Violation found cumulatively. The Court took note of the social programme attendance but found it insufficient to offset the cumulative harm of repeated and extended isolation. | Yes (cumulative) |
| 20 May 2016 – 6 Dec 2017 (within 747-day period ending 6 Jun 2018) | 566 | Punishment-cell regime (uninterrupted) | Tartu Court of Appeal (21 May 2019): Unlawful – prison failed to assess mental and physical consequences of lengthy solitary confinement. Compensation awarded: EUR 1,700 (Tartu Court of Appeal, 1 Dec 2020) for 566 days of non-pecuniary damage. | Violation of Art. 3 expressly confirmed. ECtHR agreed with domestic courts on unlawfulness, but found EUR 1,700 unreasonably low – applicant retained victim status. ECtHR cited absence of meaningful periodic assessment of mental health capacity to withstand long-term solitary confinement. | Yes (express) |
| 6 Dec 2017 – 6 Jun 2018 (remainder of 747-day period) | 181 | Punishment-cell regime (continuation) | Tartu Administrative Court: proceedings for compensation for 7 Dec 2017 – 30 Aug 2018 ultimately not examined on the merits (applicant released Mar 2020; failed to remain in contact; claim abandoned Oct 2020). | Period not assessed on merits by ECtHR (application declared inadmissible as to this period). | N/A (inadmissible) |
| SECOND APPLICANT (Application no. 45907/20) – Šmigol | |||||
| 1 Jun 2016 – 27 Jun 2017 | 392 | Punishment-cell regime (consecutive disciplinary punishments for refusal to work) | Tartu Court of Appeal (29 Mar 2018, case no. 3-17-356): Unlawful in so far as periods exceeded the 45-day limit. Prison failed to explain how it had verified that consecutive enforcement would not harm applicant’s health. Tartu Administrative Court (14 Dec 2018, case no. 3-18-360): Acknowledged non-pecuniary damage for this sub-period; deemed acknowledgment of unlawfulness as sufficient redress. | Violation of Art. 3 confirmed as part of the 482-day period. ECtHR agreed with Supreme Court’s assessment; found EUR 1,500 compensation unreasonably low. | Yes (express) |
| 29 Jun – 22 Aug 2017 | 55 | Punishment-cell regime | Supreme Court (15 Apr 2020): Unlawful. Lower courts erred in limiting the relevant period to 27 Jun 2017. The 1-day break was insufficient to alleviate negative effects of solitary confinement. All 482 days (1 Jun 2016 – 26 Sep 2017) declared unlawful. Compensation awarded: EUR 1,500 for 482 days. | Violation of Art. 3 confirmed. ECtHR agreed that a single-day break was insufficient to interrupt effectively the solitary confinement regime. | Yes (express) |
| 24 Aug – 26 Sep 2017 | 34 | Punishment-cell regime | Supreme Court (15 Apr 2020): Unlawful (included within the 482-day finding). Awarded EUR 1,500 for the entire 482-day period, noting need to consider ECtHR case-law on quantum. | Violation of Art. 3 confirmed. EUR 1,500 found unreasonably low – applicant retained victim status under Art. 34. | Yes (express) |
Key Findings Summary
| First Applicant – All Periods | Second Applicant – All Periods | ECtHR Final Conclusions |
| Total solitary confinement (Jun 2015 – Dec 2017): ~28 months. Domestic courts: Periods up to 10 May 2016 = Lawful; 20 May 2016 – 6 Dec 2017 (566 days) = Unlawful. Compensation: EUR 1,700 (Tartu Court of Appeal, 1 Dec 2020). | Total solitary confinement under review: 482 days (1 Jun 2016 – 26 Sep 2017). All 482 days declared unlawful by Supreme Court (15 Apr 2020), including sub-periods bridged by a single-day break. Compensation: EUR 1,500 (Supreme Court, 15 Apr 2020). | Art. 3 ECHR VIOLATED in respect of: – All periods 27 Jun 2015 – 6 Dec 2017 (First Applicant); – All periods 1 Jun 2016 – 26 Sep 2017 (Second Applicant). Domestic compensation (EUR 1,700 / EUR 1,500) deemed unreasonably low → both applicants retained victim status under Art. 34. |
Note: The ECtHR emphasised that the 45-day domestic maximum for punishment-cell placement became ‘practically worthless’ through consecutive enforcement, and that solitary confinement must be used only as a last resort, based on genuine grounds, with regular independent monitoring of the prisoner’s mental and physical health (Nelson Mandela Rules; Rule 43 European Prison Rules; CPT Standards).
