Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Supranational, European Court of Human Rights, 1 March 2022, No. 19090/20

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Supranational
Case ID
No. 19090/20
Decision date
1 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
European Court of Human Rights
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Human Rights Court
Instance
Application on human rights violation
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Vulnerability groups
Prisoners and people with pre-existing health issues
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.hudoc.echr.coe.int

Case analisys

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 of the Corradino Correctional Facility Authorities
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Human rights violation
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
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. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

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
Health v. prisoners’ fundamental rights
General principle applied
State of emergency or necessity
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. ‎

Author of the case note
Giulia Alessandra Foti, Research Assistant, University of Trento
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 22 May 2022

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Supranational, European Court of Human Rights, 1 March 2022, No. 19090/20
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies