CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 2025

.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 } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; 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 } .sA3E333A1 { width:6.28%; 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 } .s9BEEF8D5 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26C00EB3 { width:17.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC0F4CD9 { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37DB148A { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E8F6944 { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s283897E7 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6156D70 { height:46.55pt } .s53105243 { width:6.28%; 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 } .s5E401780 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA4A171FA { width:17.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s68739EDA { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4629D69F { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24B851EC { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE8A9321 { width:18.08%; 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 } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45873/22 Aníbal Sérgio BAPTISTA FERNANDES against Portugal and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   May 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , 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 applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain thereof were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). 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 period of detention The applicants were detained in different prison facilities. During their last, most recent and/or entire period of their detention (for further details see appended table) the applicants were detained at Izeda Prison (applications nos. 45873/22, 47609/22, 47628/22 and 47633/22); Caxias Prison (application no. 46634/22) and Pinheiro da Cruz Prison (applications nos.   46677/22 and 49678/22). 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 inhuman 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 details see the appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. Conditions of detention before the last prison transfer or placement in adequate conditions of detention. Concerning additional complaints under Article 3 raised by some of the applicants in respect of other periods of their detention, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicants’ transfer to a prison with adequate conditions of detention interrupted the “continuing situation” of their conditions of detention. Therefore, the complaints concerning the conditions of detention prior to their last prison transfer are belated (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10   January 2012). Accordingly, these complaints in respect of these periods (which are not referenced in the appended table) must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy) Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their 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 applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about their conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they are not “arguable” and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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 28 May 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain thereof) 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     45873/22 21/09/2022 Aníbal Sérgio BAPTISTA FERNANDES 1978   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Izeda Prison 12/07/2018 pending More than 6 years and 9   months 6 inmates More than 3 m² 1 toilet         lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air             46634/22 26/09/2022 João Pedro SALGADO FERREIRA 1976   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Caxias Prison 23/12/2020 to 01/07/2021 6 months and 9 days   Caxias Prison 01/07/2021 to 21/02/2022 7 months and 21 days   Caxias Prison 21/02/2022 to 30/06/2023 1 year and 4 months and 10   days 2 inmates 5.5 m² 1 toilet     9 inmates 4 m² 1 toilet     2 inmates 5.5 m² 1 toilet humidity, lack of fresh air         Idem         idem       46677/22 26/09/2022 Cláudio Fernando PEIXOTO MARTINS 1987   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Pinheiro da Cruz Prison 22/04/2016 to 27/05/2022 6 years and 1 month and 6 days     Pinheiro da Cruz Prison 27/05/2022 to 02/01/2023 7 months and 7 days 1 inmate 5.5 m² 1 toilet       3 inmates 5.5 m² 1 toilet lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities         idem     47609/22 03/10/2022 Carlos Manuel MORAIS CARVALHO ALMEIDA COSTA 1970   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Izeda Prison 05/02/2021 pending More than 2 years and 9 months and 3 days   6 inmates 3.2 m² 1 toilet humidity, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air     47628/22 03/10/2022 Joaquim António CARDOSO PAIS SILVA 1970   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Izeda Prison 24/09/2018 pending More than 5 years and 1 month and 15 days 6 inmates 3.33 m² 1 toilet humidity, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air     47633/22 03/10/2022 José Fernando CARDOSO CUNHA 1976   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Izeda Prison 26/05/2021 to 20/10/2022 1 year and 4 months and 25   days   Izeda Prison 20/10/2022 pending More than 1 year and 19 days 6 inmates 3.2 m² 1 toilet       10 inmates 3 m² 1 toilet humidity, poor quality of food           idem     49678/22 17/10/2022 José Carlos BALÃO BATISTA 1970   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Pinheiro da Cruz Prison 11/06/2012 to 31/01/2023 10 years and 7 months and 21   days 2 inmates 5.5 m² 1 toilet inadequate temperature, humidity