CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 September 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16110/23 Bernardo Maria FERREIRA LEAL CORREIA against Portugal lodged on 11 April 2023 communicated on 26 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention at the Caxias Prison Hospital following an order of 12 November 2022 issued by the Investigating Judge of the Cascais Investigation Court, for his placement, as a preventive security measure ( internamento preventivo ), in a psychiatric establishment in the context of a criminal investigation instituted against him. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not receive adequate medical care in Caxias Prison Hospital, as there were only four doctors for eighty inmates notwithstanding that the maximum capacity of that hospital was fifty inmates. Under Article 3 of the Convention, he also complains about the material conditions of his detention there (overcrowding, dampness, mould, poor quality of food). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   In particular:   1.     Was he held in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in the Caxias Prison Hospital in view of his state of health ( Rooman v.   Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144 and 145, 31   January 2019 ; Petrescu v.   Portugal , no.   23190/17, §§ 97-101, 3 December 2019; and Miranda Magro v.   Portugal , no.   30138/21, § 74, 9 January 2024)?   2.     Did the applicant receive in the Caxias Prison Hospital adequate medical care in view of his medical condition ( Rooman , cited above, §§   146 ‑ 48 ; Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 3462/16, § 103, 21   January 2020; and Miranda Magro , cited above, § 73)?