FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MONTEIRO AND TRINTA SANTOS v. PORTUGAL
(Applications nos. 40620/22 and 44221/22)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Monteiro and Trinta Santos v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr R. Mendes Martins, a lawyer practising in Lisbon, and Mr V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. 3. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, in application no. 44221/22 the applicant also complained of the lack of a domestic effective remedy in this respect. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. The government’s request to strike out the applications under article 37 § 1 of the convention
7. The Government submitted unilateral declarations which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court therefore rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ 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). 10. 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. 11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate as regards the periods of detention indicated in the appended table. 12. In application no. 44221/22 the applicant further complained of a lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which also raised an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case‑law of the Court. This complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Petrescu (cited above, §§ 75-84), concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about poor conditions of detention.
remaining complaints
14. The applicants also complained about their conditions of detention during other periods of detention. 15. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 16. It follows that this part of the applications must be declared inadmissible and rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 13
Outcome: violation