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 } .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 LASCĂU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 36701/15 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 Lascău 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 application no. 49850/15, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicant’s complaint regarding the inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 17 March 2015 was lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that the applicant was transported from his place of residence in Suceava to a court hearing in Alba-Iulia on 17 March 2015, before being placed in detention on 18 March 2015 in Alba County Police Arrest. The Court further observes that the applicant’s complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport was lodged with the Court on 2 October 2015, that is, more than six months later. 9.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that this complaint was lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 10.   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). 11.     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. 12.     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. 38602/16, 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. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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. 16.     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 application no. 49850/15, concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport, 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   Representative name and location 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]     36701/15 01/09/2015 Ioan Lascău 11/06/1956           Rahova Prison 03/09/2013 to 27/06/2014 9 months and 25 days           Satu Mare Prison 15/07/2014 to 26/06/2015 11 months and 12 days 2.44 m²                 1.43-2.58 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 03/09/2013-24/09/2013), mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking   overcrowding, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, bunk beds, inadequate temperature 3,000     49842/15 02/10/2015 Robert Scorobohaci 25/09/1990     Ionel Andrișan Rădăuţi Alba County Police Arrest 27/03/2015 to 26/07/2015 4 months 4.2-4.8 m² lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, insufficient out-of-cell space, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of dining facilities 1,000     49850/15 02/10/2015 Andy-Ștefan Scorobohaci 23/12/1984     Ionel Andrișan Rădăuţi Alba County Police Arrest 18/03/2015 to 18/05/2015 2 months and 1 day 4.02-4.8 m² lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, insufficient out-of-cell space, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of dining facilities 1,000     60129/15 29/12/2015 Tudor Oprea 23/04/1983   Craiova Prison 13/09/2013 pending More than 4 years and 7 months and 14 days 0.93-2.93 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000     60874/15 04/01/2016 Florin-Daniel Mereuţă 14/03/1981     Ovidiu Chiriac Braşov Miercurea Ciuc Prison 24/11/2014 pending More than 3 years and 5 months and 3 days 1.28-1.72 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, small courtyard, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light 3,000     60922/15 30/12/2015 Ioan Maxian 07/01/1962   Bistriţa Prison 10/10/2014 to 03/11/2014 25 days   Gherla Prison 03/11/2014 pending More than 3 years and 5 months and 24 days           2.74-2.91 m² poor quality of food, small courtyard, lack of or insufficient natural light       overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, small courtyard 3,000     61723/15 14/01/2016 Gavrilă Hotico 15/03/1978   Maramureş County Police Arrest, Gherla Prison 04/01/2014 pending More than 4 years and 3 months and 22 days 1.72-2.58 m² overcrowding 3,000     1411/16 22/01/2016 Laurențiu-Anton-Florin Giurgiu 11/07/1985   Rahova Prison, Gherla Prison 15/07/2015 pending More than 2 years and 9 months and 13 days   1.72-2.26 m² overcrowding 3,000     5185/16 16/01/2016 Vasile Bercea 15/10/1979   Bucharest Police Section no. 4, Rahova Prison 12/03/2015 pending More than 3 years and 1 month and 16 days 1.95-2.44 m² overcrowding (save for the period starting 26/10/2015 and onward), lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000   29066/16 19/07/2016 Ion Drăghiciu 01/02/1956   Bucharest Central Arrest, Mărgineni Prison 24/01/2014 pending More than 4 years and 3 months and 3 days 1.43-2.50 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate courtyard, bunk beds 3,000   38602/16 04/08/2016 Ilie-Marin Crăciun 19/08/1978   Jilava Prison, Gherla Prison, Rahova Prison, Giurgiu Prison 15/06/2007 pending More than 10 years and 9 months and 9 days 1.50 - 2.80 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods of 01/08/2007-22/08/2007, 19/02/2012-10/07/2012, 16/07/2012-13/10/2012, 14/10/2014-26/11/2014, 02/03/2015-16/03/2015, 19/03/2015-21/08/2015, 03/05/2016-25/05/2016, 13/06/2016-13/09/2016, 29/09/2016-onward), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate courtyards, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, bunk beds 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.