Inhumane living conditions for a pregnant woman at the Samos Reception Centre. Violation of Article 3 of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
M.L. v. Greece 23.11.2023 (app. no. 8386/20)
SUMMARY
The applicant complained about her living conditions at the KYT Samos on the basis of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In her observations, she further complained about her living conditions and the restriction of her freedom in the Klitidi camp.
The applicant claimed, in particular, that on her arrival she was seven months pregnant and suffered, inter alia, from gestational diabetes. She was not provided with accommodation and lived in a common tent outside the camp, where she had no access to sanitary facilities. One of the people with whom she shared the tent had been infected with tuberculosis and had therefore been referred to hospital for tests.
Regarding her access to health care, she had not been attended by the midwife at the medical facility and had not been provided with the required antenatal health care.
She also noted that, following her visit to the CID, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights said that in Samos the situation had become a “struggle for survival” and added that practical measures with an immediate impact must be taken. The Court also took into account the findings of the Hellenic National Commission for Human Rights, the national independent human rights advisory body, following the monitoring visit to Samos. In addition, UNHCR referred to overcrowding and inadequate services in terms of housing, medical support and sanitation. It concluded that the reception conditions in the CRC, as well as in the informal settlement area, were not compatible with the right to an adequate standard of living.
The Court found that the situation complained of at the Samos CST subjected the applicant to treatment that exceeded the threshold of seriousness required to trigger Article 3 of the Convention.
The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and awarded her EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for legal costs.
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The application concerns the living conditions of the applicant, a woman who was pregnant at the time of lodging her application with the Court. She arrived in Samos on 11 January 2020 and resided at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre (“the Samos RIC”). On 15 January 2020 she was classified as vulnerable because of her pregnancy, and she applied for international protection.
On 11 February 2020 she lodged a request for an interim measure with the Court, which was granted.
On 15 April 2020 the applicant was moved to a guesthouse on the island of Samos. On 18 April 2020, following her admission to the hospital, she gave birth to her daughter. On 29 July 2020 she was transferred to the mainland by the authorities, firstly to a hotel in Grevena and subsequently to the structure of Sintiki in the municipality of the Serres Region (“the Kleidi camp”).
The applicant complained of her living conditions at the Samos RIC under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In her observations, she further complained of her living conditions and of restriction of freedom at the Kleidi camp.
- THE APPLICANT’S VERSION AS TO THE LIVING CONDITIONS AT THE SAMOS RIC AND THE KLEIDI CAMP
- The living conditions at the Samos RIC
The applicant submitted, in particular, that upon her arrival she had been seven months pregnant and suffering, inter alia, from gestational diabetes. She had not been provided with housing and had been living in a shared tent outside the RIC where she had had no access to sanitary facilities. One of the people with whom she had been sharing the tent was infected with tuberculosis and thus she had been referred to a hospital for testing.
According to her submissions, on 20 February 2020 she had been placed in an overcrowded container within the RIC. There had been no heating and no protection against the weather conditions. The sanitary facilities had been in a precarious hygienic condition as the toilets were used by numerous residents other than those of the container. The applicant had often had to wait to use the toilet which was exhausting and painful in her stage of pregnancy.
As regards the applicant’s access to healthcare, she had not been attended by the midwife of the medical unit and she had not been provided with the required prenatal healthcare.
The applicant argued that she had been in need of a reception environment that accommodated her particular needs as a pregnant woman, such as adequate accommodation, sanitary facilities and nutrition appropriate to her medical condition of gestational diabetes.
- The living conditions in the Kleidi camp
The applicant submitted, in her observations, that her living conditions significantly deteriorated from the time of her transfer to the Kleidi camp. She noted that the camp was a closed facility, surrounded by fences. She alleged that she had only been allowed to leave the camp for special reasons with permission and that her presence in the container had been checked every morning. She submitted that she had been sharing a container with two other families, the toilets had been located far from the container, the water had not been drinkable, and that the living conditions and the restriction of freedom had affected her psychological condition.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
- The applicant’s living conditions in the Samos RIC
According to the Court’s well-established case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of that level is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, principally the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.
The general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‑seekers, were summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece , Khlaifia and Others , and R.R. and Others v. Hungary (no. 36037/17, § 64, 2 March 2021), and there is no need to repeat them here.
The general principles concerning the living conditions in respect of pregnant women and the duration of ill-treatment suffered were summarised in Mahmundi and Others v. Greece; R.R. and Others ; and A.D. v. Greece, no. 55363/19, §§ 32‑33, 4 April 2023.
The Court observes that the applicant resided at the Samos RIC from 11 January 2020 to 15 April 2020, that is, for more than three months in total. During that period, she was in an advanced stage of her pregnancy and therefore in need of specialised care.
It also notes that, following her visit to the RIC, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights stated that in Samos the situation had become “a struggle for survival” and added that practical measures should be taken with an immediate impact (see paragraph 20 above). The Court also takes into account the findings of the Greek National Commission for Human Rights, the national independent advisory body on human rights, following their monitoring visit in Samos . In addition, the UNHCR in its third-party observations referred to overcrowding and inadequate services in respect of shelter, medical support and sanitation . It concluded that the reception conditions in the RIC, as well as in the informal settlement area, were not compatible with the right to an adequate standard of living.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the parties’ submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the situation complained of in the Samos RIC subjected the applicant to treatment which exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
- The applicant’s living conditions in the Kleidi camp
The applicant stated that her living conditions had deteriorated from the time of her transfer to the Kleidi camp.
The Government denied the applicant’s allegations and requested that they be dismissed.
Having regard to the parties’ submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the situation complained of in the Kleidi camp had not subjected the applicant to treatment which exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Further to the conclusion drawn in this decision, the Court notes that the measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 is no longer relevant.
JUST Satisfaction: The ECtHR awarded €5,000 for non pecuniary damages and €1,000 for legal costs.
