In a number of cases where the applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of floor surface, the Court considered the overcrowding to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 102-103, 28 March 2006; Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, §§ 31-32, 1 March 2012; Nieciecki v. Greece, no. 11677/11, §§ 49-51, 4 December 2012; Kanakis v. Greece (no. 2), no. 40146/11, §§ 106-107, 12 December 2013; Tatishvili v. Greece, no. 26452/11, § 43, 31 July 2014; Tereshchenko v. Russia, no. 33761/05, §§ 83-84, 5 June 2014).

The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 79-85, 12 June 2008; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 120-166; Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 28-33, 1 March 2012; Kolunov, cited above, §§ 30-38; and Zentsov and Others, cited above, §§ 38-45).

While finding it particularly disturbing that the activation of the applicant's infection could have occurred in a custodial institution within the State's control as an apparent consequence of the authorities" failure to eradicate or prevent the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its consistent approach that this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicant received treatment for it (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October 2007; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009; Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 88, 21 December 2010; Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 66, 5 April 2011; and more recently, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012).

In such circumstances, the provision of timely and adequate medical treatment becomes key in assessing the liability of State authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012 and the cases cited therein for a similar approach under Article 3 in custodial settings, where the Court made it clear that contracting tuberculosis during detention did not in itself imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicants concerned received adequate treatment for it).