CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12962/25 Giorgos CHARALAMBOUS against Cyprus lodged on 17 April 2025 communicated on 10 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly disproportionate detention of the applicant for his failure to pay approximately 120 court fines issued against him over the course of many years. The applicant was imprisoned on five occasions for periods spanning several days to months between 2018 and 2021 following relevant court decisions on account of his failure to pay off some of the fines. On 4 October 2023, an imprisonment warrant (no.   12050/2011, originally issued on 5 November 2010 by a domestic court for a one-year sentence unless payment was made) was executed, and the applicant remained in detention until 23 July 2024, completing a one-year term as calculated by the Prisons’ authority. On 23 July 2024, following the execution of the above warrant, a different outstanding warrant was subsequently enforced. The applicant remains in detention since, following the execution of other pending warrants. He unsuccessfully challenged his detention complaining of the length of his detention and the way the said orders are enforced consecutively before the domestic courts (habeas corpus petition no. 139/24 and appeal no. 29/2024). Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the consecutive enforcement of the fines results in an excessive and disproportionate punishment, potentially leading to his imprisonment for over 120   years. He maintains that there is no mechanism whereby such fines could be enforced cumulatively, and that the severity of the punishment bears no reasonable proportionality to the infringements committed, especially given his poor financial circumstances, which make him unable to pay the fines. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Vinter and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, § 102, ECHR   2013 (extracts), and Gatt v. Malta , no. 28221/08, § 28, ECHR 2010 with further references)?   The Government should provide copies of the various court orders issued against the applicant over the years and include in their submissions information about the sentences spent so far.