CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .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 ŞTEFĂNESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 11408/16 and 11 others ‑ see appended list )                 JUDGMENT               STRASBOURG     20 September 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ştefănescu 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 30 August 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. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16 and 19944/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six ‑ month time-limit rule, arguing that the applicants’ complaint regarding their initial detention was lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 13684/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention from 22 December 2010 to 14   September 2012, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9.     The Court further observes that in application no. 19026/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention from 2 October 2007 to 22   November 2007, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 13 August 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10.     Furthermore, the Court notes that in application no. 19942/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention from 22 March 2012 to 13   February 2014, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 23 June 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 11.     Lastly, the Court notes that in application no. 19944/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention from 4 July 2011 to 3   August   2012, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 13 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 12.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s preliminary objection and finds that the above-mentioned parts of applications nos. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16 and 19944/16 were lodged outside the six-month time ‑ limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 13.     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). 14.     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. 15.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the continuous situation of the applicants’ condition 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. 16.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     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. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16 and 19944/16 concerning the applicants’ detention periods which ended on 14   September 2012, 22   November 2007, 13   February   2014 and 3   August   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 20 September 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’s name Date of birth   Representative’s 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]     11408/16 07/07/2016 Aurel-Dumitru Ştefănescu 15/03/1971 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest Facilities and Penitentiaries of Rahova, Jilava and Giurgiu 26/04/2010 pending More than 8 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s) 1.8- 2.79 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 26/11/2010 to 17/01/2011, 22/03/2011 to 04/04/2011, 30/01/2013 to 20/08/2015, 23/12/2015 to 25/12/2015 and starting from 12/02/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature. 5,000     13684/16 06/04/2016 Constantin Davidov 29/05/1967 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Giurgiu Penitentiary             Tulcea Penitentiary 14/01/2013 pending More than 5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 day(s) 3.39- 10.17 m²           1.81- 2.53 m²     no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food     Overcrowding (save for the periods from 28/02/2013 to 04/03/2013, 06/06/2013 to 27/06/2013, 28/08/2014 to 11/09/2014 and 25/09/2014 to 23/10/2014), bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell.   5,000     13775/16 10/06/2016 Constantin-Daniel Sfarc 09/05/1987     Iași Penitentiary 06/04/2011 to 26/07/2016 5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s) 1.3- 2.18 m² Overcrowding (save for the period from 29/01/2015 to 03/02/2015), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of storing facilities. 5,000     14281/16 06/04/2016 Petru Bordianu 15/06/1989     Bacău Penitentiary 13/04/2010 to 06/08/2010 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)           Iași Penitentiary 06/08/2010 to 17/02/2015 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12   day(s)     Vaslui Penitentiary 17/02/2015 Pending   More than 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 day(s) 1.65- 2.73 m²               1.28- 2.18 m²           2.44- 2.79 m² Overcrowding (save for the period from 15/06/2010 to 26/07/2010), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.     Overcrowding (save for the periods from 15/11/2010 to 21/11/2010 and 26/02/2014 to 07/03/2014), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents;   Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water. 5,000     14569/16 06/04/2016 Liviu-Marian Duca 13/06/1990 Ovidiu Chiriac Brașov Codlea Penitentiary 15/12/2015 to 14/01/2016 and 21/10/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s)     Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary 14/01/2016 to 21/10/2016 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)     1.43- 2.1 m²                 1.72- 1.88 m²     Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of storing facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents;         Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, bunk beds, lack of storing facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 3,000     15619/16 04/05/2016 Ion Miriţă 20/11/1972     Penitentiaries of Mărgineni, Ploiești and Găești 03/03/2015 to 28/06/2016 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26   day(s) 1.3- 2.5 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 13/11/2015 to 19/11/2015 and 14/12/2015 to 28/06/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet. 3,000     15667/16 06/04/2016 Ioan Bujorică 14/09/1988     Gherla Penitentiary 03/04/2014 pending More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 9 day(s) 1.89- 2.69 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 25/04/2014 to 01/06/2014 and 06/05/2015 to 11/05/2015), lack of storing facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet.   3,000     15704/16 01/08/2016 Aurel Csortan 14/02/1974     Penitentiaries of Târgu Mureș and Aiud 25/05/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 18 day(s) 1.64- 2.60 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, constant electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 3,000     18910/16 11/07/2016 Vlăduț-Alexandru Agapi 24/03/1990     Tulcea Penitentiary 23/05/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 20 day(s) 2.60 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of storing facilities, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture.   3,000   19026/16 13/08/2016 Grigore Iacob 04/02/1969     Penitentiaries of Jilava, Giurgiu and Iași 11/07/2008 pending More than 9 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 2 day(s) 1.18- 2.19 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 10/07/2009 to 26/08/2009, 20/06/2011 to 05/07/2011, 06/08/2014 to 14/08/2014 and the period spent in Giurgiu Penitentiary), lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds (Penitentiaries of Jilava and Iași), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water (Penitentiaries of Jilava and Giurgiu), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 5,000   19942/16 23/06/2016 Daniel Ciobanu 04/11/1992 Andreea-Gabriela Cadar Galați Iași Penitentiary 11/06/2014 pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 day(s)   2.18 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture. 3,000   19944/16 13/07/2016 Iulian Romaşcanu 12/06/1979     Iași Penitentiary 16/11/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1.28- 2.19 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods from 20/08/2013 to 13/09/2013 and 02/10/2013 to 07/10/2013), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture. 5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.