CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sCEB8D7FA { width:109.24%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s1E4E3B1D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s30D20741 { width:20.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s34E48096 { width:16.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76F90FAC { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8453AB20 { width:9.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDEAEE6E4 { width:27.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s80D1569D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s642FC426 { width:20.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8A991E5E { width:16.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s64633DB7 { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s241D6C81 { width:9.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4384FB4B { width:27.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34951/21 Diamantino Manuel DELGADO LOUREIRO against Portugal (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   January 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   July 2021, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of his conditions of detention in Caxias prison. According to the information provided by the Government, not contested by the applicant, he was transferred to another prison on 20 June 2017. It is also noted that by a judgment of Sintra Administrative Court, the applicant was awarded 1,000   euros for the non-pecuniary damage caused due to his conditions of detention in Caxias Prison. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant “no   longer a victim” of the alleged violation. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his conditions of detention. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27   April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Narcisio v. Netherlands (dec.), no.   47810/99, 27 January 2005). Having regard to the findings above as to the applicant’s complaints under Article   3 of the Convention, this complaint must also be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances   34951/21 01/07/2021   Diamantino Manuel DELGADO LOUREIRO 1956   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras   Caxias Prison 20/01/2017 to 20/06/2017 5 months   12 inmates 1.95 m² 2 toilets   lack of fresh air, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet