CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 octobre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 Story and Others v. Malta - 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13 Judgment 29.10.2015 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Allegedly inadequate detention conditions in prison facility: no violation Facts – In their application to the European Court the applicants complained that the detention conditions in the sector hosting foreign detainees in the Corradino Correctional Facility in Paola were inadequate. Law – Article 3: The Court noted at the outset that the applicants were not suffering from any particular health condition likely to make their detention more burdensome, nor had there been any deterioration of their physical or mental condition while they were in detention. In fact, they were regularly visited by doctors and prescribed the relevant medical treatment. As to the alleged lack of personal space, the applicants each had their own cell with individual sleeping place and there was no problem of overcrowding. It did not appear that the cells were particularly damp or mouldy, bearing in mind the particularly humid climate of the country. The windows and ventilators in the cells could supply enough light and ventilation. In this regard, the Court reiterated that in the absence of any indications of overcrowding or malfunctioning of the ventilation system and artificial lighting, the negative impact of metal shutters did not, on its own, reach the threshold of severity required under Article   3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, prison authorities had to ensure that all ventilators were fully functional in all cells and that detainees were supplied with the equipment needed to open and keep open high windows. While the lack of a heating or dehumidifying system was regrettable, the Court noted that detainees could request further blankets or warmer clothing, which the authorities were required to supply promptly. The Court further noted that the toilet in the applicants’ cell was not separated from the living area and was not equipped with an automated flushing system. As water was not always readily available to enable flushing with a bucket, this raised hygiene concerns. Further, the failure of the authorities to ensure a regular supply of both hot and cold water in the showers and to keep them in working order was unfortunate and the Court would remain vigilant in future cases in this respect. Conversely, the availability and duration of outdoor exercise raised no particular concern as inmates were free to move around and access the exercise yard and other recreational facilities for more than 10   hours a day. In sum, while the Court was concerned about a number of matters, it was not convinced that the overall conditions of detention, and the medical treatment received by the applicants, had subjected them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention or that their health and well-being were not adequately protected. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). (See also the Factsheets on Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners and on Prisoners’ health-related rights )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes