THIRD SECTION CASE OF ATTALIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Application no. 57479/17) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 September 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Attalidis and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President , Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 July 2017. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms E.-L. Koutra, lawyer practising in Athens. 3. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention in Korydallos prison. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW STRIKe out of the application WITH RESPECT TO APPLICANTS Astrit Bujaraj, Jhad Karam and Epaminondas Papadopoulos 6. By letter dated 3 October 2025, sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the applicants were requested to inform the Court of any important factual developments in their case, that may have taken place since their last correspondence with the Court. They were notified that their reply should be accompanied by a recent detention certificate or any other relevant documents. The applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that if the requested information was not received within the indicated time ‑ limit, the Court may conclude that the applicants no longer wished to pursue their application and decide to strike it from its list of cases. In her reply to that request sent on 23 January 2026, the representative did not provide any information regarding applicants Astrit Bujaraj and Jhad Karam (indicated under nos. 2 and 4 in the appended table). The representative also submitted that the applicant Epaminondas Papadopoulos (indicated under no. 8 in the appended table) had died, and that no heirs had expressed an interest to pursue the application on his behalf. 7. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application with respect to the applicants Astrit Bujaraj, Jhad Karam and Epaminondas Papadopoulos (indicated under nos. 2, 4 and 8 in the appended table). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION 8. The applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3, 5-7 and 9 in the appended table complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention, including about the detention of some of them with convicted persons. Admissibility 9. The Government submitted that at the time, when the applicant Panajot Puci (indicated under no. 9 in the appended table) lodged his application with the Court, he had already been transferred to the Thiva Prison Rehabilitation Centre where the detention conditions were considerably different from those in the Korydallos Prison. Therefore, the applicant should have exhausted the remedy under Article 105 of the introductory Law to the Civil Code. The Court accepts that before he lodged his application form, this applicant had been transferred to the Thiva Prison Rehabilitation Centre, a facility about which he did not complain. He thus did not seek to put an end to an ongoing violation of his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, but attempted to obtain a subsequent ruling on an alleged past violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of his detention. Accordingly, an action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code constituted a domestic remedy which should have been used by that applicant (see Papadakis and Others v. Greece , no. 34083/13, §§ 47-8, 25 February 2016, and Zabelos and Others v. Greece , no. 1167/15, § 54, 17 May 2018, with further references). It follows that the complaint about poor conditions of detention lodged by the applicant Panajot Puci (indicated under no. 9 in the appended table) should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 10. As regards the remaining applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3 and 5 ‑ 7 in the annex, the Court notes that their complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 11. The details of the remaining applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. 12. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-59, 10 January 2012). 13. The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases (see Muršić , cited above, §§ 127-28). 14. The Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention in the Korydallos prison (see Singh and Others v. Greece , no. 60041/13, §§ 52 ‑ 58, 19 January 2017, and, for illustrative purposes, Cela and Others v. Greece [Committee], no. 10244/14, §§ 45 ‑ 50, 20 April 2017). 15. The applicants argued that they had been detained in overcrowded conditions, having been afforded less than 3 sq. m of personal space each. They alleged that they had been held in cells of 9.5 sq. m with only 6.5 sq. m of inhabitable surface, as the sanitary facilities occupied 3 sq. m, with each cell holding three to four detainees. 16. The Government submitted that the cells where the applicants had been detained measured 9.5 sq. m with 8.5 sq. m of inhabitable space and one sq. m for the sanitary facilities. They affirmed that, in general, each cell held one to two detainees, without however providing any evidence to that effect. They further provided the following information: as regards the applicants indicated under nos. 3 and 7 in the appended table, the Government submitted that they had been each detained in cells holding four persons in total; as to the applicants indicated under nos. 5 and 6 in the table, the Government did not indicate the exact number of co-detainees; for the applicant indicated under no. 1 in the appended table, the Government submitted that he was held with one co-detainee for twenty ‑ two months of detention, and with three other inmates for eleven months. 17. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants indicated under nos. 3 and 7 in the annex disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space throughout their detention, even assuming that the cells where they had been detained had 8.5 sq. m of living space (the maximum as per the Government’s submissions). 18. Turning to the applicants listed under nos. 5 and 6 in the table, the Court notes that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture following its visit in March and April 2019 (CPT/Inf (2020) 15) found that the Korydallos Prison was operating at severe overcrowding exceeding 140 % of its capacity, once again calling upon the Greek authorities to take urgent steps to progressively reduce the overcrowding notably in terms of reducing the occupancy levels from the current three or more prisoners per 9.5 sq. m cell to no more than two per cell. In its previous visit from 14 to 23 April 2015 (CPT/Inf (2016) 4), the CPT had reiterated its findings from its 2013 visit, that the cells of 9.5 sq. m designated for single person occupancy were routinely used for three to four inmates, recommending reducing occupancy levels at the Korydallos Men’s Prison. The Court also notes that that the Government acknowledged in their observations that the Korydallos Prison’s capacity was 1,270 inmates, while the occupancy rate varied from 2,209 prisoners in 2014 to 1,172 in 2020. Lastly, according to the statistical data of the Ministry of Justice, there was persistent overcrowding in that facility in 2017, 2019 and 2020. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the Government’s assertion that the cells in which applicants nos. 5 and 6 were detained held one or two detainees. It therefore accepts the applicants’ arguments that each cell was occupied by three to four persons. It follows that, even assuming that the cells of the applicants indicated under nos. 5 and 6 in the appended table had 8.5 sq. m of inhabitable space (the maximum as per the Government’s submissions), the personal space available to them had been inferior to 3 sq. m. 19. Lastly, as regards applicant indicated under no. 1 in the appended table, the Government acknowledged that, for a period of eleven months that applicant had been held with three other persons and, accordingly, that the personal space available to him was less than 3 sq. m, even assuming that the cell of that applicant disposed of 8.5 sq. m of inhabitable space (the maximum as per the Government’s submissions). They failed, however, to provide any evidence to substantiate the exact duration of the period in question. It follows that the applicant indicated under no. 1 disposed less than 3 sq. m of personal space for unspecified period of time. 20. In view of the above and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds it established that the conditions of the applicants’ detention (indicated under nos. 1, 3 and 5-7 in the appended table) were inadequate. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 21. The aforementioned renders it unnecessary for the Court to consider separately the rest of the applicants’ complaints regarding the conditions of their detention under Article 3, including the allegations of remand and convicted prisoners being detained together (see, for example, Igbo and Others v. Greece , no. 60042/13, § 46, 9 February 2017). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 22. The applicants complained under Article 13 that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in connection to their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 23. Taking into account the facts of the case and the finding of a violation of Article 3 on account of the general conditions of detention prevailing in the Korydallos Prison, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to examine this part of the application (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and, for illustrative purposes, Fraggopoulos v. Greece [Committee], no. 550/17, §§ 21-22, 23 January 2025). 24. Finally, certain applicants raised other complaints under various Convention provisions about the very fact of their detention, as well as about the quality of the medical care in the Korydallos Prison. 25. The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 26. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Muršić, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table for non ‑ pecuniary damage to the applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3 and 5 ‑ 7 in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 28. The Court also considers it reasonable to award these applicants the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) jointly for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to strike out the application in the part lodged by the applicants Astrit Bujaraj, Jhad Karam and Epaminondas Papadopoulos (indicated under nos. 2, 4 and 8 in the appended table); Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention with respect to the applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3 and 5 ‑ 7 in the appended table admissible, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the detention of the applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3 and 5 ‑ 7 in the appended table in overcrowded conditions in the Korydallos Prison; Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints about the conditions of detention raised under Article 3 of the Convention by some applicants, including the complaints about their detention together with convicted prisoners; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants indicated under nos. 1, 3, and 5-7 in the annex, within three months; the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts; EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to these applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 September 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Representative’s name and location Applicant’s name Year of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] 57479/17 03/07/2017 (9 applicants) Koutra Electra ‑ Leda Athens 1. Dimitris ATTALIDIS 1958 2. Astrit BUJARAJ / BUJARI 1969 3. Nikola CELA 1970 4. Jhad KARAM 1988 5. Palaj KLEANTH 1994 6. Michail NARLIOTIS 1960 7. Charles NGIMBA/ ZISTOKELE 1965 8. Epaminondas PAPADOPOULOS 1980 9. Panayot PUCI 1974 Korydallos prison 08/12/2015 ‑ 26/09/2017 1 year and 9 months and 19 days Korydallos prison 17/01/2017 ‑ 19/06/2017 5 months and 3 days Korydallos prison 06/02/2017 ‑ 24/02/2020 3 years and 19 days Korydallos prison 09/12/2016 ‑ 08/06/2018 1 year and 6 months Korydallos prison 13/05/2017 ‑ 07/11/2017 5 months and 26 days Korydallos prison 19/02/2016 ‑ 12/03/2018 2 years and 22 days Korydallos prison 10/10/2016 ‑ 12/03/2018 1 year and 5 months and 3 days Korydallos prison 12/09/2016 ‑ 06/05/2019 2 years and 7 months and 25 days Korydallos prison 02/06/2015-27/03/2017 1 year and 9 months and 26 days 7,600 - 11,400 - 2,900 8,300 6,600 - - [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants .