FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11749/21
Mădălin Alin NĂSTĂSESCU against Portugal
and 2 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 June 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). In application no. 15761/21, the applicant also complained about a lack of a remedy at domestic level in respect of conditions of detention.
THE LAW
Joinder of the applicationsHaving regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the conditions of detention are inadmissible.
Conditions of detention concerning the last or entire period of detentionThe applicants were detained in different prison facilities. During their last, most recent and/or entire period of detention, the applicants were detained at Lisbon Central Prison (applications nos. 11749/21 and 17611/21) and Pinheiro da Cruz Prison (application no. 15761/21).
Having regard to all the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot establish that the applicants suffered in these prison facilities from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016) 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 inhumane or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal, (dec.) no. 5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020).
It follows that the complaints concerning these periods of detention in the facilities indicated above (for further detains see the appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.
Conditions of detention before the last prison transfer (application no. 15761/21)Concerning application no. 15761/21, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicant’s transfer to Pinheiro da Cruz prison on 20 July 2015 interrupted the “continuing situation” of his conditions of detention. Therefore, the applicant’s complaints concerning his conditions of detention prior to this prison transfer are belated (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10 January 2012). Accordingly, these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Remaining complaintsUnder Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 15761/21 complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his conditions of detention. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applied only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Narcisio v. Netherlands (dec.), no. 47810/99, 27 January 2005). Having regard to the findings above as to the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they are not “arguable” for the purpose of Article 13.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
11749/21
19/04/2021
Mădălin Alin NĂSTĂSESCU
1993
--
Lisbon Central Prison
19/08/2020 to
07/07/2021
10 months and 19 days
1 inmate
7.14 m²
1 toilet
lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, infringement of sanitary regulations, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
--
15761/21
05/03/2021
Miguel Ângelo PAIVA BORDA DE ÁGUA
1989
Vítor Carreto
Torres Vedras
Beja Prison
05/03/2012 to
25/07/2015
3 years and 4 months and 21 days
***
Pinheiro da Cruz
20/07/2015 to
12/10/2018
3 years and 2 months and 18 days
Pinheiro da Cruz
12/10/2018 to
27/07/2021
2 years and 9 months and 16 days
5 inmates
3.27 m²
1 toilet
***
1 inmate
5.64 m²
1 toilet
3 inmates
5.50 m²
1 toilet
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy
***
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food
idem
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
17611/21
28/07/2021
Igor OLIVEIRA ANDRADE
1993
Ulisses de Sousa
Amadora
Lisbon Central Prison
28/09/2020
pending
More than 2 years and 7 months and 28 days
1 inmate
7.14 m²
1 toilet
mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, absence of an alarm system in the cell
--