Supranational, European Court of Human Rights, 1 March 2022, No. 19090/20
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
This case has dealt with the conditions of detention of the Applicant in a Maltese prison. The Applicant has argued that they are contrary to art. 3 ECHR, and that Malta has failed to fulfill its obligation to appropriately protect him from contracting COVID-19 considering his specific health conditions. The Court has found that both in the period of solitary confinement and later when he was moved to a dormitory, the conditions of his detention cannot be considered to be a violation of article 3 ECHR. The Court has noted how the limitations introduced to limit the spread of COVID-19 that have been shared by the Applicant with other residents in the facility as well as society in its entirety. Furthermore, the Court has highlighted the unprecedented and exceptional nature of this pandemic, which must be considered when evaluating the proportionality and reasonableness of the authorities’ choices. In this case, the Court has also noted how the Applicant has not sufficiently proved that his physical conditions put him at a significantly higher risk than other vulnerable detainees if he were to contract COVID-19. Consequently, the ECHR has rejected the Applicant’s claim.
Facts of the case
The Applicant has been detained in a Maltese prison since November of 2019. He only has one kidney and therefore, he has argued, that he is particularly at risk of complications if he were to contract COVID-19. Having been refused several requests for release, he has asked the Constitutional Court to release him, arguing that his rights under article 5 ECHR have been violated. Allegedly because of the duration and urgency of constitutional redress procedures, he has not included articles 2 and 3 ECHR during these proceedings. In November of 2020, the Constitutional Court has rejected his application. The Applicant has argued that the conditions of his detention have been abusive and unhealthy, in violation of article 3 ECHR, and that he has not been appropriately protected from COVID-19 considering his personal health circumstances in violation of articles 2 and 3 ECHR.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
In declaring admissible the first claim, the Court has argued that, based on its own case law on constitutional redress proceedings in Malta, it can be found that there have been a lack of timely determinations regarding urgent matters such as these. Part of the claim pertained to the constant use of surveillance cameras during the Applicant’s meetings with his lawyer. This part has been declared inadmissible by the Court as it has to do with article 8 ECHR, the right to private life. This complaint should therefore first be brought before the national constitutional jurisdictions, according to the principle of subsidiarity.
The Court has then noted how solitary confinement was not given as a protective measure since the Applicant tested positive for cocaine. During this period, it has been concluded that the detention conditions did not violate article 3. During the following period spent in a dormitory with other detainees, the Court has found the individual space available and outdoor exercise opportunities were satisfactory. Regarding the restricted access to certain activities such as the church and gym and contact with his family around May of 2020, the Court has accepted that these were measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the facility. The ECHR has reiterated that the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 is an “exceptional and unforeseeable context”. These limitations are an unavoidable part of being detained during such an emergency.
Furthermore, alternative measures to contact his family virtually were promptly put into place. Consequently, the detention conditions have not breached article 3 ECHR. The Court has declared inadmissible the Applicant’s claim under article 2 that insufficient measures were taken to protect him from COVID-19 considering he has only one kidney. It has been noted how insufficient documentation has been provided on the level of risk suffered by a man of his age with no other underlying conditions. A violation of his right to life has therefore been rejected. The same complaint has however been declared admissible under article 3. Here the Court has found once again that the Applicant has not proven he belongs to the group considered “most vulnerable” to COVID-19, and that the preventive measures put into place in the facility considering the novelty and urgency which characterized the pandemic have been adequate and proportionate.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court has rejected the claim, finding no violation of article 3 ECHR during the period of detention of the Applicant, nor related to the State’s obligation to preserve his health during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Prisoners’ rights
- Right to an effective remedy
- Right to bodily integrity
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Prohibition of Torture, Art. 3, European Convention of Human Rights
- Right to life, Art. 2, European Convention of Human Rights
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court has explained how the state of emergency caused by an unprecedented and unforeseeable situation such as that provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic justifies the limitations lamented by the Applicant, furthermore because they were shared not only by the other inmates but also by society as a whole.
