FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MARQUES ÂNGELO v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 31516/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 February 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Marques Ângelo v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 June 2022. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Carreto, lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. 3. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. Under Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. THE LAW
THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 of the Convention
6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration 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 rejects the Government’s request to strike the application 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
7. The applicant complained principally of inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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). 9. 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. 10. 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. In particular, it is noted that during his detention (see the appended table for further details) the applicant was kept in a multi-occupancy cell which, according to the Government, had a toilet which was not separated from the remaining cell. According to the Court’s case-law, this situation is unacceptable. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant’s conditions of detention during the period indicated in the appended table exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering which is inherent in detention and went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 (see Petrescu, cited above, § 101; and Canali v. France, no. 40119/09, § 52, 25 April 2013)
11. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant further complained of a lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaint 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
13. The applicant also complained about his conditions of detention between 17 January 2020 and 4 October 2022, a period of detention during which he was detained in adequate conditions of detention. Having regard to all of the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot establish that the applicant suffered during that period of detention in the concerned prison facilities from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić, cited above) nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant 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). 14. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the complaint related to this period of detention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 15. Moreover, the Court rejects the complaint concerning the period of detention before 17 January 2020, given the entirely different nature of the detention conditions, as belated for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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.

Outcome for Article 13: violation