Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200

October 2016

Muršić v. Croatia [GC] - 7334/13

Judgment 20.10.2016 [GC]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Limited personal space in multi-occupancy prison accommodation: violation, no violations

Facts – In his application to the European Court the applicant complained about a lack of personal space in prison which had, on occasion, fallen below 3 square metres .

In a judgment of 12 March 2015 a Chamber of the Court, by six votes to one, found that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, it found that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, though not always adequate, had n ot reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Information Note 183 ).

On 7 July 2015 the case was referred t o the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.

Law – Article 3: The Court’s assessment as to whether there has been a violation of Article 3 could not be reduced to a numerical calculation of square metres allocated to a detainee. Such an approach would d isregard the fact that, in practical terms, only a comprehensive approach to the particular conditions of detention could provide an accurate picture of the reality for detainees.

However, where the personal space available to a detainee fell below 3 sq. m of floor surface in multi-occupancy accommodation in prisons, the lack of personal space was considered so severe that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arose. The burden of proof was on the respondent Government, who could rebut that presu mption by demonstrating that there were factors capable of adequately compensating for the scarce allocation of personal space. The strong presumption of a violation would normally be capable of being rebutted only if the following factors were cumulativel y met: the reductions in the required minimum personal space of 3 sq. m were short, occasional and minor; such reductions were accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and adequate out-of-cell activities; the applicant was confined in what was, when viewed generally, an appropriate detention facility and there were no other aggravating aspects of the conditions of his or her detention.

In cases where a prison cell measuring in the range of 3-4 sq. m of personal space per inmate was at issue, space remained a weighty factor in the Court’s assessment of the adequacy of conditions of detention. In such instances a violation of Article 3 would be found if the space factor was coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions o f detention related to, in particular, access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, availability of ventilation, adequacy of room temperature, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements .

In cases where a detainee disposed of more than 4 sq. m of personal space in multi-occupancy accommodation in prison and where therefore no issue with regard to the question of personal space arises, the other aspects of physical conditions of detention remained relevant for the Court’s assessment of adequacy of an applicant’s conditions of detention.

The applicant had, on occasion, been detained in cells which fell below 3 sq. m and as such, there was a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3. As regards one such occasion lasting twenty-seven days, the strong presumption of a violation could not be called into question. The conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period had subjected him to hardship beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and thus amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3. As rega rds the other periods during which the applicant disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space, the Government had rebutted the strong presumption of a violation. The applicant had been detained in generally appropriate conditions, the non-consecutive pe riods could be regarded as short and minor reductions in personal space, during which sufficient freedom of movement and out-of-cell activities had been available to him and, as such, the Court considered that these periods did not amount to degrading trea tment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. The conditions of the applicant’s detention in the period when he disposed of between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Conclusions :

– violation as regards the period of twenty-seven days in which the applicant disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space (unanimously);

– no violation as regards the remainder of the non-consecutive periods in which the applicant disposed of less th an 3 sq. m of personal space (ten votes to seven);

– no violation as regards the periods in which the applicant disposed of between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space (thirteen votes to four).

Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See al so Ananyev and Others v. Russia , 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, Information Note 148 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes