CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF BURCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 15557/15 and 10 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   26 July 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Burcea 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 5 July 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. In application no.   16249/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 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 principally 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. 52024/15 and 16171/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged out of the time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 52024/15 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibași Prison, which ceased on 6 September 2010 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 7   March 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9.     The Court further observes that in application no. 16171/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 21 July 2014 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 11 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications nos. 52024/15 and 16171/16 were lodged out of 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 objections concerning 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 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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     In application no. 16249/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of medical assistance in detention. 16.     Having examined the application, the Court 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, this 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 17.     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.” 18.     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. 19.     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.   52024/15, 16171/16 and 16249/16 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 26 July 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]     15557/15 11/09/2015 Marius-Cătălin Burcea 10/04/1992     Mărgineni Prison, Craiova Prison, Ploiești Prison, Găești Prison 08/06/2011 to 01/08/2016 5 years and 1   month and 25   days 1.5-2.9 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 23/07/2012-07/05/2013), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, small courtyard, lack of or insufficient natural light   5,000     29956/15 03/08/2015 Costel Dănciulescu 21/04/1980     Jilava Prison 17/10/2014 to 04/12/2015 1 year and 1   month and 18   days 1.8-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 13/07/2015-04/12/2015), bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities   3,000     46426/15 05/10/2015 Ion Vălu 28/09/1960     Rahova Prison 11/03/2014 pending More than 4   years and 2   months and 19   days 1.9-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 11/03/2014-31/03/2014), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture 3,000     48073/15 10/10/2015 Dumitru Marian David 26/09/1987     Rahova Prison 14/10/2014 to 17/09/2015 11 months and 4   days 1.9-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 09/12/2014-10/12/2014, 20/04/2015-22/04/2015, 12/05/2015-14/05/2015, 15/06/2015-17/06/2015, 03/07/2015-17/09/2015), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture 1,000     52024/15 07/03/2016 Nicolae Ionescu 28/01/1979     Colibași Prison 31/03/2011 to 08/08/2016 5 years and 4   months and 9   days     14/11/2016 to 26/09/2017 10 months and 13 days 1.6-2.4 m²           2 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 26/08/2013-04/09/2013), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature   5,000     15681/16 03/05/2016 George Ioan 06/11/1981     Rahova Prison, Jilava Prison, Giurgiu Prison, Galați Prison 23/10/2015 to 09/09/2016 10 months and 18   days 1.2-2.7 m² overcrowding 1,000     16171/16 11/04/2016 Cătălin-Georgel Ţuiu 30/06/1983     Craiova Prison 24/11/2014 pending More than 3 years and 6   months and 6   days 1.4-2.1 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     16249/16 15/04/2016 Marian Pruteanu 23/03/1969     Craiova Prison, Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prison 14/05/2003 pending More than 15   years and 16   days 1.1-1.8 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 26/07/2013-1/08/2013), bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water 5,000     16475/16 15/06/2016 Andrei-Ionuț Sabău 09/01/1992     Tulcea Prison 28/01/2016 pending More than 2   years and 4   months and 2   days 2.3-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for the period starting with 29/03/2017 and onward), inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000   44312/16 25/07/2016 Flaviu-Ștefan Pop 01/08/1985 Vasile Rareș Biro Satu Mare Rahova Prison, Jilava Prison, Baia Mare Prison 12/11/2014 to 05/10/2016 1 year and 10   months and 24   days 1.6-2 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 28/10/2015-05/10/2016), bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000   49001/16 04/08/2016 Gheorghe-Cătălin Cobzaru 23/09/1975     Neamț County Police Arrest, Bacău Prison, Iași Prison, Vaslui Prison 21/01/2014 to 29/11/2016 2 years and 10   months and 9 days 1.2-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 16/04/2014-09/09/2014, 24/10/2014-19/12/2014, 29/01/2015-14/03/2015, 28/07/2015-10/09/2015, 18/09/2015-09/06/2016, 30/07/2016-29/09/2016), small courtyard, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.