CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BF4101 { width:166.26pt; display:inline-block } .sE6546C2D { width:159.78pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF ANGHEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 5192/16 and 10 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 June 2018             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Anghel and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     In applications nos. 24073/16 and 37189/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention were lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 24073/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibaşi Prison, which ceased on 28 November 2012 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 June 2016, that is, more than six months after his transfer. 9.     The Court further observes that in application no. 37189/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Rahova Prison and Giurgiu Prison, which ceased on 29 May 2015 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 16 June 2016, that is, more than six months after his transfer. 10.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 11.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić , cited above, §§   122   ‑ 141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 159, 10   January 2012). 12.     In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 13.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the application of the six-month rule to the continuous situation of the applicant’s conditions of detention in case no. 35627/16, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 14.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 17.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 24073/16 and 37189/16 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     5192/16 13/01/2016 Vasile Anghel 01/01/1974 Craiova Prison 01/08/2014 to 10/02/2016 1 year and 6 months and 10 days 0.93-1.53 m² overcrowding, small courtyard, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000     24073/16 06/06/2016 Dragoș-Florin Costache 26/11/1990 Colibaşi Prison 01/04/2013 pending More than 5 years and 27 days 1.54-2.69 m² overcrowding (save for the period starting with 24/05/2016 onward), insufficient and poor quality of food, insufficient toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 5,000     24624/16 04/08/2016 Ionel Agafiței 18/12/1980 Iaşi Prison 04/05/2016 to 07/12/2016 7 months and 4 days 1.28-1.67 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 1,000     26561/16 03/10/2016 Petru Paraschiv 05/06/1972 Iaşi County Police Arrest, Iaşi Prison 23/03/2015 pending More than 3 years and 1 month and 6 days 1.3 - 2.2 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light 3,000     31177/16 29/06/2016 Costel Gheorghe 18/04/1978 Galaţi Prison 02/07/2015 pending More than 2 years and 9 months and 26 days 1.2-1.63 m² overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, bunk beds 3,000     33522/16 28/09/2016 Octavian Cojocea 11/06/1992 Galaţi Prison 14/07/2015 pending More than 2 years and 9 months and 14 days 1.38 - 1.64 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     35627/16 11/07/2016 Nicuşor Brănescu 13/06/1972 Bucharest Central Arrest, Jilava Prison, Rahova Prison, Giurgiu Prison, Mărgineni Prison, Poarta Albă Prison, Slobozia Prison, Colibaşi Prison   25/06/2003 pending More than 14 years and 10 months and 6 days 1.37 - 2.92 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 23/02/2007-11/05/2007, 20/12/2012-11/02/2013, 09/05/2013-31/07/2013, 07/08/2014-04/09/2014, 20/04/2015-11/06/2015, 18/06/2015-27/10/2015), poor quality of food, insufficient sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature 5,000     37189/16 16/06/2016 George-Iulian Dragu 01/06/1986 Rahova Prison 22/10/2015 pending More than 2 years and 6 months and 5 days   1.93-2.75 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 28/11/2016-29/11/2016), lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     38096/16 15/07/2016 Vasile Ungureanu 09/11/1958 Târgu-Jiu County Police Arrest, Craiova Prison, Rahova Prison 18/11/2010 pending More than 7 years and 5 months and 10 days 1.21 - 2.41 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 18/11/2010-10/02/2011 and 10/01/2012-28/01/2012), poor quality of food, inadequate courtyard, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture 5,000   39814/16 22/09/2016 Cătălin-Vasile Alaciu 16/11/1974 Rahova Prison 13/08/2015 to 24/08/2016 1 year and 12 days 1.9 - 2.3 m² overcrowding, insufficient natural and artificial light/furniture/hygienic products, restricted access to warm water, poor and insufficient food, inadequate courtyard, poor quality of bedding 3,000   47442/16 12/09/2016 Ilie Călin 05/12/1969 Vrancea County Police Arrest, Focşani Prison, Galaţi Prison, Iaşi Prison 02/05/2014 to 18/05/2016 2 years and 17 days 1.29-1.62 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, bunk beds in Iaşi Prison 3,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.