The case originated in two applications against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d)<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Da Silva Santos Pereira and Diamantino v. Portugal,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in two applications against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Portuguese Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT the APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations which were not accepted by the applicants. The Court notes that the unilateral declarations 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 \u00a7 1\u00a0in fine). The Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants\u2019 detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-141, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u2011159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 9. In the cases of Petrescu v. Portugal, no. 23190\/17, 3 December 2019, and B\u0103dulescu v. Portugal, no. 33729\/18, 20 October 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention were inadequate.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 181 and 184), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Rejects the respondent Government\u2019s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Armen Harutyunyan _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n (inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n
\nCASE OF DA SILVA SANTOS PEREIRA AND DIAMANTINO DA\u00a0SILVA v. PORTUGAL<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 4581\/20 and 55438\/20)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 June 2022<\/p>\n
\nArmen Harutyunyan, President,
\nJolien Schukking,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n