CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 mai 2019

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 1659/16 and 7 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT       This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court   in a judgment of 16 July 2020     STRASBOURG       16 May 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grancea 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 25 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. In applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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.     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 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined these applications 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     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. 15.     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 in all applications admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16 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 16 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]     1659/16 04/02/2016 Traian-Ioan Grancea 06/07/1979 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 21/05/2014 pending More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) 1.4 m² Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light. 3,000     7791/16 17/03/2016 Costel-Cornel Calinciuc 04/10/1979   Represented by Ionuţ Iulian Vasilache Vaslui Bucharest Police Section no. 6, Rahova, Tulcea and Vaslui Prisons 19/09/2009 to 17/05/2016 6 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 29   day(s) 1.1 - 2.44 m² Overcrowding (save for the period of 20/12/2013 - 17/05/2016 in Vaslui Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 5,000     8981/16 08/02/2016 Károly-Antonio Dioszegi 11/08/1985   Represented by Adrian-Samuilă Rusu, Cluj-Napoca   Gherla and Baia   Mare Prisons 21/05/2015 to 05/11/2015 5 month(s) and 16   day(s) 1.8 - 2.9 m² Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food. 1,000     12910/16 28/06/2016 Vlad-Florian Stancu 19/09/1984 Giurgiu Prison 19/11/2014 pending More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2.33 - 2.91 m² Overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents. 3,000     12961/16 25/03/2016 Paul-Dumitru Cazbir 26/11/1977 Braşov Police, Codlea, Jilava and Arad Prisons 09/08/2002 pending More than 16   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 12   day(s) 0.3 - 2.4 m² Overcrowding (save for the period 05/08/2011 to 16/02/2017 in Arad Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.   5,000     13680/16 25/04/2016 Levente Mihok 25/05/1974 Harghita Police 10/03/2005 to 26/05/2005 2 month(s) and 17   day(s)         Miercurea Ciuc Prison 26/05/2005 pending More than 13   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 28   day(s) 2.76 m²                 1.5 - 2.2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food         Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 5,000     19346/16 18/08/2016 Sorin Vulpeanu 29/08/1987 Arad Prison 18/05/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s) 3.9 – 5.8 m² No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food.   3,000     19706/16 09/05/2016 Petru-Robert Sîrb 06/03/1978 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 05/11/2013 pending More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s) 1.33 - 2.41 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 inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.