European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DOS SANTOS NEVES v. PORTUGAL

(Application no. 53415/21)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

2 March 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of dos Santos Neves v. Portugal,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Armen Harutyunyan, President,
          Anja Seibert-Fohr,
          Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 October 2021.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr R. Mendes Martins, a lawyer practising in Lisbon.

3.  The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention.

THE LAW

I.        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION between 4 August and 28 October 2021

6.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention between 4 August and 28 October 2021. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

7.  The details of the applicant’s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).

8.  In the leading case of Petrescu v. Portugal, no. 23190/17, 3 December 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints in the instant case as far as they concern the applicant’s conditions of detention between 4 August and 28 October 2021. In particular, it is noted that during that detention period the applicant was kept in a cell which, according to the Government, had a toilet only separated from the rest of the cell by a 1.5-meter wall. According to the Court’s case‑law, this situation is unacceptable. The Court concludes that the applicant’s conditions of detention during that period exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering which is inherent in detention and went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 (see Petrescu, cited above, § 110; and Canali v. France, no. 40119/09, § 52, 25 April 2013).

10.  The complaint about the period of detention between 4 August and 28 October 2021 is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

II.     Remaining complaints

11.  Concerning the remaining periods of detention complained of, having regard to all of the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot establish that the applicant suffered in the concerned prison facilities from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić, cited above) 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, no. 5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020).

12.  In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the complaints related to the remaining periods of detention (for further details see the appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Muršić, cited above, §§ 181 and 184), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention between 4 August and 28 October 2021, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention conditions between 4 August and 28 October 2021;

3.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                         Armen Harutyunyan

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)