SANTOS SOUSA A OSTATNÍ proti Portugalsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 53925/19
Cláudio Jorge SANTOS SOUSA against Portugal
and 6 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. 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.

1. Conditions of detention concerning the last period of detention

The applicants were detained in different prison facilities. During their last, most recent and/or current period of detention, the applicants were detained at Carregueira Prison (applications nos. 53925/19, 55842/19, 60808/19, 61332/19, 62142/19 and 62146/19) and Vale de Judeus Prison (application no. 61323/19).

Having regard to all of 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 inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal, no. 5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020).

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

2. Conditions of detention before their last prison transfer

Concerning applications nos. 53925/19, 55842/19, 60808/19, 61332/19, 62142/19 and 62146/19, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicants’ transfer to the last prison facility interrupted the «continuing situation» of their conditions of detention. Therefore, the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of detention regarding the period prior to his last prison transfer are belated (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10 January 2012); and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Remaining complaints

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that five-minute telephone calls per day were insufficient to maintain contact with their family and friends. The Court notes that this limitation is established in section 132 of the prison regulation. Furthermore, the Committee on the Prevention Against Torture (CPT) has considered five minutes per day of telephone calls to be satisfactory (see Bădulescu v. Portugal, no. 33729/18, §§ 36-37, 20 October 2020). Given the other means of communication available to the applicants as detainees to maintain contact with their family and friends, it follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the lack of access to the Internet, namely, to access government sites and relevant legal information. The Court’s case-law has established that Article 10 cannot be interpreted as imposing a general obligation to provide access to the Internet, or to specific Internet sites, for prisoners (see Kalda v. Estonia, no. 17429/10, § 45, 19 January 2016). It is also noted that the applicant did not submit any request in this regard to the Director of the prison. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their conditions of detention. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be a 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 applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about their conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they are not “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13. It follows that this complaint must also be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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 1 December 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)