FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45873/22
Aníbal Sérgio BAPTISTA FERNANDES against Portugal
and 6 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, 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 applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain thereof 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 entire period of their detention (for further details see appended table) the applicants were detained at Izeda Prison (applications nos. 45873/22, 47609/22, 47628/22 and 47633/22); Caxias Prison (application no. 46634/22) and Pinheiro da Cruz Prison (applications nos. 46677/22 and 49678/22).

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 inhuman 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 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 the last prison transfer or placement in adequate conditions of detention.

Concerning additional complaints under Article 3 raised by some of the applicants in respect of other periods of their detention, in light of the conclusion above, the Court finds that the applicants’ transfer to a prison with adequate conditions of detention interrupted the “continuing situation” of their conditions of detention. Therefore, the complaints concerning the conditions of detention prior to their last prison transfer are belated (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10 January 2012). Accordingly, these complaints in respect of these periods (which are not referenced in the appended table) must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy)

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants 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 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 applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about their conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they are not “arguable” and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable.

It follows that this part of the applications must 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 28 May 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain thereof)