Background
Nabeel Gondal was held at Diavata Prison from 15 January 2020 until his transfer to Neapoli Prison on 9 April 2021. He alleged that severe overcrowding left him with less than 3 sq. m of personal space and that conditions were otherwise poor, including inadequate hygiene and heating, lack of activities, mould and insect infestation.
Greece argued that he had not exhausted domestic remedies because he could have brought a compensatory action under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code. It also submitted that his cell measured 22 sq. m and was shared with five to seven other prisoners, without specifying the precise occupancy periods.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously rejected the Government’s non-exhaustion objection. Gondal lodged his Strasbourg application while still detained at Diavata, and the Government did not substantiate its assertion that he already knew he would be transferred the following day.
The Court found a violation of Article 3. On the Government’s own account, Gondal had at times shared a 22 sq. m cell with seven other inmates, giving him 2.75 sq. m of personal space. The Government did not provide cell-by-cell population records or establish that the reduction below 3 sq. m was short, occasional and minor. Against the background of overall prison overcrowding and the CPT’s observations on Diavata, the strong presumption of an Article 3 violation was not rebutted. The Court did not separately examine the remaining detention allegations or the Article 13 complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Personal space below 3 sq. m creates a strong presumption of an Article 3 violation.
- The respondent State must provide sufficiently specific evidence to show that any shortfall was limited and adequately offset.
- The Court awarded EUR 5,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 in costs and expenses.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Muršić overcrowding framework to Diavata Prison and underscores that general descriptions of prison conditions cannot rebut the presumption arising from materially inadequate personal space. Detailed evidence on actual cell occupancy and duration is critical.
For prisoners transferred after filing an application, the decision also confirms that an unsubstantiated claim of prior knowledge of transfer will not defeat a complaint concerning ongoing detention conditions.