CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 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 } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDEE01590 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14022/26 Alexandros GERASIMOU against Cyprus lodged on 27 March 2026 communicated on 20 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly poor conditions of the applicant’s detention on remand in “Block 8 - Special” at Nicosia Central Prisons since 8 December 2025. The applicant, who remains in detention, complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the absence of beds in the cells having to sleep in makeshift beds made of plastic containers, overcrowding with less than 3m 2 personal space, the absence of in cell sanitary facilities having to urinate in bottles or hold off his needs until the morning, and the absence of heating and adequate insulation allowing cold air in the cells. He further complains under Article   13 of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the above. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§   96-101, 20 October 2016; S.Z. v. Greece , no. 66702/13, § 40, 21 June 2018 with further references)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012 and Danilczuk v. Cyprus , no. 21318/12, §§ 39-47, 3 April 2018)?