CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 juin 2024

.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 } .sF3834CFE { margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s28CF29CF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s85890BEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4322257 { width:6.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sE2414748 { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s48E562E2 { width:13.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD849F2 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA72432E { width:13.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70193B53 { width:12.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF314C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBB8C798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sD4F33CA5 { width:6.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .sD9CB77AE { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2814FF37 { width:13.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE9F3A370 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFB015459 { width:13.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA6C8D1EF { width:12.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 25228/22 and 31521/22 Bruno CORREIA MILHÃES against Portugal and Pedro Alexandre PEREIRA DA SILVA against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   June   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr. R. Mendes Martins, a lawyer practising in Lisbon, and Mr. V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. 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. 31521/22, the applicant also complained about the 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 Articles 3 and 13 concerning periods of detention in which the applicants were detained in multi-occupancy cells without privacy in the toilet The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints insofar as they concerned periods in which the applicants were detained in multi-occupancy cells without privacy in the toilet. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods at issue. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. They disagreed with the terms of the declarations. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for   example, Petrescu v. Portugal, no. 23190/17, 3 December 2019). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications in that part (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part concerning inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention, as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. In so far as application no. 31521/22 referred to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court, in light of its findings above, does not consider it necessary to examine separately this complaint. Other complaints The applicant in application no. 25228/22 also complained under Article   3 of the Convention about other periods of detention. The Court 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. This part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in the part covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Decides , as regards application no. 31521/22, that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of application no. 25228/22 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 July 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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 Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     25228/22 12/05/2022 Bruno CORREIA MILHÃES 1984   Rodrigo Mendes Martins Lisbon 14/02/2024 22/05/2024 7,000 250     31521/22 17/06/2022 Pedro Alexandre PEREIRA DA SILVA 1973   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras 14/02/2024 14/04/2024 7,500 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.