CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 mai 2019

.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 } .s4DAA9627 { width:178.94pt; 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 } .s7EAE0776 { height:57.9pt } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB2941CA4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .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 MÂZGĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 5489/16 and 9 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   9 May 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mâzgă and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2019, 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.     Notice of the applications was given 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.     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). 8.     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. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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 applications. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 10.     These applications are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     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. 13.     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 applications admissible;   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 9 May 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani 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   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]     5489/16 01/04/2016 Ioan Mâzgă 23/06/1981 Colibași and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 06/09/2015 to 04/01/2018 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30   day(s) 1.49-2.92 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     9209/16 28/03/2016 Ioan Tofan 30/08/1980 Iași Prison 24/04/2015 to 18/05/2016 1 year(s) and 25 day(s) 1.28 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, 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, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water 3,000     9338/16 08/02/2016 Constantin Ninel Potîrcă 20/11/1967 Craiova Prison 22/09/2014 to 11/09/2018 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21   day(s) 1.19-1.95 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food 3,000     9896/16 11/03/2016 Cornel Ioan-Vereș 12/10/1942 Maramureș County Police Inspectorate, Baia   Mare Prison, Aiud Prison, Gherla Prison, and Rahova Prison 14/01/2013 pending More than 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6   day(s) 1.96-2.92 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature 5,000     11994/16 25/03/2016 Nicolae Aenculese 06/12/1983 Iași Prison 26/06/2013 to 24/05/2016 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29   day(s) 1.28-1.99 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture 3,000     14116/16 29/03/2016 Bogdan-Florin Lăzărescu 12/10/1989 Constanța County Police Inspectorate, Poarta Albă Prison, Rahova Prison, and Gherla Prison 22/11/2010 to 11/04/2016 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 21   day(s) 1.84-2.82 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 5,000     16863/16 18/04/2016 Toma-Teodor Neacşu 26/08/1992   Represented by Irina   Maria Peter, Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest Centre (10 th   facility) 05/05/2015 to 04/08/2015 3 month(s)     Rahova Prison 04/08/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6   day(s)           2.44-2.45 m² poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air   overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     18963/16 10/05/2016 Alexandru Mădălin Miroiu 05/09/1993 Dolj County Police Inspectorate and Craiova Prison 24/08/2014 to 01/08/2017 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 9   day(s) 1.19-2.08 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture 3,000     19177/16 03/05/2016 Cosmin Lăzăroiu 11/05/1979 Craiova Prison 16/06/2014 to 14/07/2016 2 year(s) and 29 day(s) 1.12-2.92 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture 3,000   19782/16 04/05/2016 Dorel Lingurar 24/05/1973 Aiud Prison 25/07/2013 to 25/01/2018 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s) 1.6 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food 3,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.