European Court of Human Rights
20 October 2016
Facts
The applicant had been detained in cells which fell below 3m². On one occasion, he had been detained in less than 3m² for 27 days.
Complaint
The applicant complained about the lack of personal space in prison which had, on occasion, fallen below 3m².
Court’s ruling
The Court held that the assessment as to whether there had been a violation of Article 3 could not be reduced to a numerical calculation of square meters allocated to a detainee. The Court favoured a comprehensive approach to the conditions of detention and explained in what situations the lack of personal space would amount to a violation of Article 3.
Where the personal space available fell below 3m², there was a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3. Such presumption could be rebutted only by demonstrating that there were factors compensating for the lack of personal space (for example the periods when prisoners had less than 3m² of personal space were short, occasional, and minor; there was sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell etc.). In cases where the personal space available was between 3m² and 4 m², a violation of Article 3 could be found if there was in addition other aspects of inappropriate conditions of detention, such as lack of natural light, air, ventilation, compliance with sanitary requirements etc. In situations where the personal space available was more than 4m², the Court considered that there would be no issue regarding personal space, but the other aspects of conditions of detention remained relevant for the Court’s general assessment of the conditions of detention. In the present case, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 as regards the period of 27 days in which the applicant had less than 3m² of personal space.