ENES VINHAL A OSTATNÍ proti Portugalsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20370/20
Rui Miguel ENES VINHAL against Portugal
and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President,

Jolien Schukking,

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 were represented by Vitor Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras, Portugal.

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)
   1. Conditions of detention concerning the last period 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 during the period as described below are inadmissible.

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. 20370/20, 24784/20, 26130/20, 26226/20, 40894/20, and 46242/20) and Pinheiro da Cruz Prison (applications nos. 28871/20 and 28908/20).

Having regard to all the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot be established 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 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 140, 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, (dec.) no. 5227/18, §§ 32-34, 10 December 2020).

In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints about these periods of 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 prior their last prison transfer

Concerning applications nos. 20370/20, 24784/20, 26130/20, 26226/20, 28908/20, 40894/20, 46242/20, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicants’ transfer to the last (most recent) prison facility interrupted the “continued situation” of their detention, and thus the complaints about the detention conditions during the period prior to their last 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. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention)

Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants argued the lack of an effective remedy to complain against the inadequate conditions of detention in Portugal. The Court notes that, according to the Court’s established case-law, Article 13 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 in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 about the conditions of their detention, the Court concludes that they did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable. It follows that this part of the applications 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 27 October 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)