CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5DDD244 { width:144.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4D3C0E3E { width:4.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6EB18CD8 { width:10.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s13B9124F { width:13.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6B9A0E3E { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA0196FFB { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4F97D58 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F419D3 { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E7E8960 { width:11.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFF29C2A7 { width:4.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s26C19356 { width:10.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s119ECC38 { width:13.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDC555E47 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s839ECF00 { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3F1DFF98 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AC405FA { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F817531 { width:11.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11749/21 Mădălin Alin NĂSTĂSESCU against Portugal and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   June 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged 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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants 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 Portuguese Government (“the Government”). In application no. 15761/21, the applicant also complained about a lack of a remedy at domestic level in respect of conditions of detention. THE LAW 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. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the conditions of detention are inadmissible. Conditions of detention concerning the last or entire period of detention The applicants were detained in different prison facilities. During their last, most recent and/or entire period of detention, the applicants were detained at Lisbon Central Prison (applications nos. 11749/21 and 17611/21) and Pinheiro da Cruz Prison (application no. 15761/21). Having regard to all the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot establish that the applicants suffered in these prison facilities from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20   October 2016) nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicants complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhumane or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal , (dec.) no.   5227/18, §   34, 10 December 2020). It follows that the complaints concerning these periods of detention in the facilities indicated above (for further detains see the appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 a) and   4 of the Convention. Conditions of detention before the last prison transfer (application no.   15761/21) Concerning application no. 15761/21, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicant’s transfer to Pinheiro da Cruz prison on 20   July 2015 interrupted the “continuing situation” of his conditions of detention. Therefore, the applicant’s complaints concerning his conditions of detention prior to this prison transfer are belated (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10 January 2012). Accordingly, these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   15761/21 complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his conditions of detention. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applied only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be victim of a violation of a Convention right (see   Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series   A no.   131, and Narcisio v. Netherlands (dec.), no. 47810/99, 27 January 2005). Having regard to the findings above as to the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they are not “arguable” for the purpose of Article 13. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 20 July 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Tim Eicke   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     11749/21 19/04/2021 Mădălin Alin NĂSTĂSESCU 1993 -- Lisbon Central Prison 19/08/2020 to 07/07/2021 10 months and 19 days 1 inmate 7.14 m² 1 toilet lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, infringement of sanitary regulations, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities --     15761/21 05/03/2021 Miguel Ângelo PAIVA BORDA DE ÁGUA 1989 Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Beja Prison 05/03/2012 to 25/07/2015 3 years and 4 months and 21 days     ***   Pinheiro da Cruz 20/07/2015 to 12/10/2018 3 years and 2 months and 18 days     Pinheiro da Cruz 12/10/2018 to 27/07/2021 2 years and 9 months and 16 days 5 inmates 3.27 m² 1 toilet         ***   1 inmate 5.64 m² 1 toilet         3 inmates 5.50 m² 1 toilet overcrowding, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy     ***   lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food           idem Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     17611/21 28/07/2021 Igor OLIVEIRA ANDRADE 1993 Ulisses de Sousa Amadora Lisbon Central Prison 28/09/2020 pending More than 2 years and 7   months and 28 days 1 inmate 7.14 m² 1 toilet mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, absence of an alarm system in the cell --