Detention for 27 days in personal space of less than 3 square metres was inhuman and degrading treatment

JUDGMENT:

Muršić v. Croatia 12.03.2015 (no.  7334/13)

see here

SUMMARY:

The Court confirmed that 3 sq. m of surface area per detainee in a multi-occupancy cell was the prevalent norm in its case-law, being the applicable minimum standard for the purposes of Article 3. When that area fell below 3 sq. m, the lack of personal space was regarded as so serious that it gave rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3. Having regard to the documents produced by the Government and to the applicant’s statements, the Court found that the conditions in which the applicant had been held in Bjelovar Prison were generally appropriate, but that there had been a violation of Article 3 for the consecutive period of 27 days during which he had been confined in less than 3 sq. m of personal space. The other periods during which Mr Muršić had disposed of less than 3 sq. m could be regarded as short and minor reductions of personal space, while at the same time Mr Muršić had sufficient freedom of movement and activities outside the cell and was being held in a generally appropriate detention facility

PROVISION:

Article 3

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The case concerned the alleged overcrowding of prisons and, in general, the poor prison conditions in Croatia.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

The Grand Chamber, like the Chamber in its judgment of 12 March 2015, found that Mr Muršić had
duly exhausted domestic remedies.

The Court confirmed that 3 sq. m of floor surface area per detainee in a multi-occupancy cell was the
prevalent norm in its case-law, being the applicable minimum standard for the purposes of Article 3.
When that area fell below 3 sq. m, the lack of personal space was regarded as so serious that it gave
rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3. The respondent Government could, however,
rebut that presumption by demonstrating that there were factors capable of adequately compensating for the lack of space. The strong presumption of an Article 3 violation would normally be rebutted where: reductions in the required personal space of 3 sq. m were only short, occasional and minor; they were accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and out-ofcell activities; the prisoner was held in a facility which could generally be regarded as providing adequate conditions. In the present case, the Court decided to look more closely at the complaints concerning the periods in which Mr Muršić disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space in Bjelovar Prison.

The Court observed at the outset that it had not so far considered that conditions of detention in
Croatia disclosed a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover,
none of the previous cases about overcrowding in Croatian prisons had specifically concerned the
conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison. While the present case did not raise a structural issue
concerning the conditions of detention in Croatia, the Court’s task was to address Mr Muršić’s
particular complaint of overcrowding in Bjelovar Prison, where he had been serving a prison
sentence in the period between 16 October 2009 and 16 March 2011.

The Court noted that the particular details of the personal space allocated to Mr Muršić were based
on the documentation provided by the respondent Government and not contested by him.

Specifically, during his stay in Bjelovar Prison, which lasted for one year and five months he was
detained in four cells in which he had between 3 and 6.76 sq. m of personal space. He had only 2.62
sq. m of personal space once for one day, once for two days and three times for three days; and 2.55
sq. m once for eight days and once for three days; lastly, he had 2.62 sq. m for a consecutive period
of 27 days.

The Court found that in the period of 27 consecutive days in which Mr Muršić disposed of less than 3
sq. m of personal space, he had been subjected to conditions of detention which clearly subjected
him to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and thus
amounting to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. As regards the remaining periods, which were of short duration, the Court would have regard to other relevant factors. The burden of proving the existence of such factors was on the Government.

The Government had explained that the inmates were allowed to move freely outside their cells in
the morning and afternoon, and to use the indoor and outdoor facilities of Bjelovar Prison. This in
particular included two hours of outdoor exercise and in addition free out-of-cell movement inside the prison between 4 and 7 p.m. Mr Muršić had sought to challenge the Government’s submission only in very general terms, emphasising the fact that he had not been engaged in any work. The Court observed that the Government’s submissions were very detailed and there was no reason for it to doubt the authenticity, objectivity and relevancy of the documents they had produced. On the other hand, in the absence of any detailed information from Mr Muršić about his daily routines at Bjelovar Prison, the Court was unable to accept the applicant’s submissions as sufficiently established or credible. It also attached particular importance to the fact that the applicant never complained at the domestic level about certain aspects of his confinement, such as the alleged lack of outdoor exercise or insufficient time for free movement around the prison.

The Court noted that in the ordinary daily regime Mr Muršić had been allowed the possibility of two
hours of outdoor exercise, which was a standard under the relevant domestic law and above the
minimum standards of the CPT (the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). Moreover, it was undisputed by the applicant that he was
allowed three hours per day of free movement outside his cell within the prison facility.

Even taking into account the fact that Mr Muršić had been unable to obtain work, which related not
only to the objective impossibility on account of a lack of jobs, but also arguably to the applicant’s
previous behaviour, the possibility of free out-of-cell movement and the facilities available to him
could be seen as significantly alleviating factors in relation to the scarce allocation of personal space.
The other periods during which Mr Muršić had disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space could
be regarded as short and minor reductions in personal space, during which sufficient freedom of
movement and out-of-cell activities were available to him, in a generally appropriate detention
facility. The conditions of Mr Muršić’s detention, although not completely adequate as regards
personal space, had not reached the threshold of severity required for the treatment to be regarded
as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

The fact that the relevant domestic law provided for a standard of 4 sq. m of personal space per detainee could not be considered a decisive argument for the Court’s assessment under Article 3, as when the Croatian Constitutional Court had examined the question of the minimum personal space to be allocated to a detainee, it had referred to Strasbourg’s own minimum standard of 3 sq. m of personal space as set
out in the Ananyev and Others judgment.

The Court thus considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the other periods
in which he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space did not amount to degrading treatment
prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention with regard to the
consecutive period of 27 days in which Mr Muršić disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space.
However, with regard to the other periods in which Mr Muršić disposed of less than 3 sq. m the
Court found that there had been no violation of Article 3. Lastly, it could not be considered that the
conditions of his detention in the periods when he disposed of between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal
space amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3, so there had
been no violation of that Article in respect of those periods either.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that Croatia was to pay the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 3,091.50 in respect of costs and expenses.

Separate opinions

Judges Sajó, López Guerra and Wojtyczek expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion; Judges
Lazarova Trajkovska, De Gaetano and Grozev expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion; and JudgePinto de Albuquerque expressed a partly dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες