JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 2018 –– CASE C-220/18 PPU GENERALSTAATSANWALTSCHAFT (CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN HUNGARY) The assessment of the conditions of detention 90 In the absence of minimum standards under EU law regarding detention conditions, it should be recalled that, as has already been held in the judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 90), Article 3 of the ECHR imposes on the authorities of the State in whose territory a person is being detained a positive obligation to satisfy themselves that a prisoner is detained in conditions which guarantee respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (ECtHR, 25 April 2017, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, CE:ECHR:2017:0425JUD006146712, § 72). 91 In that regard, if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the ECHR, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity, which depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (ECtHR, 20 October 2017, Muršić v. Croatia, CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000733413, §§ 97 and 122). 92 In view of the importance attaching to the space factor in the overall assessment of conditions of detention, a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR arises when the personal space available to a detainee is below 3 m2 in multi-occupancy accommodation (ECtHR, 20 October 2017, Muršić v. Croatia, CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000733413, § 124). 93 The strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR will normally be capable of being rebutted only if (i) the reductions in the required minimum personal space of 3 m2 are short, occasional and minor, (ii) such reductions are accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and adequate out-of-cell activities, and (iii) the general conditions of detention at the facility are appropriate and there are no other aggravating aspects of the conditions of the individual concerned’s detention (ECtHR, 20 October 2017, Muršić v. Croatia, CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000733413, § 138). 94 In the present case, the referring court itself is of the opinion that the information available to it concerning detention conditions at Szombathely prison, in which it is accepted that the person concerned should serve the majority of the custodial sentence imposed on him in Hungary, rules out the existence of a real risk of that person being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter: that has, moreover, not been disputed by any of the interested parties who have participated in these proceedings. 95 Accordingly, the executing judicial authority must determine whether the person concerned will, on the other hand, be exposed to such a risk in Budapest prison. 96 It is not decisive in that regard that detention in that facility is intended to last only for the duration of the surrender procedure and therefore, according to the information provided by the authorities of the issuing Member State, should not in principle exceed three weeks. 97 It is true that the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the length of a detention period may, as has already been stated in paragraphs 91 and 93 of this judgment, be a relevant factor in assessing the gravity of suffering or humiliation caused to a detainee by the inadequate conditions of his detention (ECtHR, 20 October 2017, Muršić v. Croatia, CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000733413, § 131). 98 However, the relative brevity of a detention period does not automatically mean that the treatment at issue falls outside the scope of Article 3 of the ECHR when other factors are sufficient to mean that it is caught by that provision. ECLI:EU:C:2018:589 17