CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD4E8089D { height:86.5pt } .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 KAYMAK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 481/15 and 11 other applications - see appended list )                                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   28 June 2018     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kaymak 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 7 June 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. 22155/15, 25665/15 and 39596/15 the Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to comply with the six-month time-limit claiming that the applicants’ complaints in so far as they concerned the initial period of their detention had been lodged out of the six-month time-limit. 8.     The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint in application no.   22155/15, concerning the period of detention in Jilava Prison, which ceased on 17 March 2006, date of his release, was lodged with the Court on 22   May 2015, that is, more than six months after his release. 9.     The Court notes that in application no. 25665/15 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Aiud Prison, which ceased on 7   December 2010 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 15   June 2015, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10.     The Court further notes that in application no. 39596/15 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Iași Prison, which ceased on 29 May 2012 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 7   December 2015, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 11.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications nos. 22155/15, 25665/15 and 39596/15 were lodged outside of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 12.     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). 13.     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. 14.     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 applicants’ conditions of detention in some of the cases, 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 cases the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 15.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINT 16.     In application no. 481/15, the applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of his detention in various prisons from 6 June 2014 to 2 July 2015. 17.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     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.” 19.     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. 20.     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. 481/15, 22155/15, 25665/15 and 39596/15, concerning the applicants’ detention periods which ended on 2   July   2015, 17 March 2006, 7 December 2010 and 29 May   2012 respectively, inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints 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 28 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]     481/15 18/12/2014 Kayhan Kaymak 08/03/1975 Rahova Prison 02/07/2015 pending More than 2 years and 10 months and 15 days   1.93-3.26 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet     3,000     9716/15 03/12/2015 Ionuț-Valentin Mavru 05/11/1986 Tulcea Prison 17/04/2013 pending More than 5 years and 5 days       2.82 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air     5,000     18424/15 25/06/2015 Irimie Cornelea 24/12/1959 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 08/03/2011 pending More than 7 years and 1 month and 15 days   1.4 - 2.66 m² Overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     22155/15 22/05/2015 Carmeluș Constantin 28/05/1973 Bucharest Police Arrest, Jilava, Mărgineni, Galați, Rahova, Giurgiu, Miercurea Ciuc and Ploiești Prisons 31/12/2006 to 30/09/2016 9 years and 9 months and 1 day 1.43-4.34 m² Overcrowding (save for the period from 17/02/2007 to 12/04/2007 in Jilava Prison), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food 5,000     25665/15 15/06/2015 Ionuţ Andrei 08/12/1988 Aiud Prison 10/11/2011 to 02/09/2016 4 years and 9 months and 24 days 1.7-3.73             Overcrowding (save for the period from 17/04/2015 to 16/03/2016 in Aiud Prison), inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food   3,000     39596/15 07/12/2015 Ionuț Munteanu 12/01/1992 Iași Prison 27/01/2013 to 06/12/2016 3 years and 10 months and 10 days 1.28-1.99 m² Overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell   3,000     42995/15 03/03/2016 Gerald-Mirel Toilă 08/10/1971 Craiova Prison 10/10/2014 pending More than 3 years and 7 months and 15 days     1.21 - 3.2 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 06/11/2014 to 10/11/2014, from 20/11/2014 to 24/11/2014 and from 06/01/2015 to 10/01/2015), bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water   3,000     56966/15 07/12/2015 Eugen-Árpád Nagy 23/04/1977 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 30/10/2011 to 06/03/2017 5 years and 4 months and 7 days   0.77-1.68 m² Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture       5,000     6300/16 18/01/2016 Marin Georgescu   Craiova Prison 22/12/2011 pending More than 6 years and 5 months and 4 days   1.42-4.16 m² Overcrowding (save for the period from 04/08/2012 to 21/08/2012 in Craiova Prison), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack or inadequate furniture   5,000   11422/16 09/05/2016 Karol Fogarași 05/12/1972   represented by Irina Maria Peter   Bucharest Rahova, Giurgiu, Jilava and Găești Prisons 16/11/2010 to 10/09/2016 5 years and 9 months and 26 days 1.7-3.19 m² Overcrowding (save for the period in Gaești Prison from 22/12/2014 to 31/08/2015), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   5,000   16700/16 27/07/2016 Mihăiță Dumitriu 29/03/1986 Iași Prison 08/06/2011 pending More than 6 years and 11 months and 18 days 1.28-2.19 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture     5,000   17849/16 04/05/2016 George-Petru Baras 26/08/1984 Iași Prison 12/10/2015 to 22/04/2016 6 months and 11 days 1.3-5.8 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower   1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.