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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s9955AD3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4D5ECAEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 CĂLIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 20049/15 and 8 others -see appended list )                 JUDGMENT               STRASBOURG   16 May 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Călin 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. 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. 16634/16 and 31344/16 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 were lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 16634/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 9   February 2015 by his transfer, for more than nine months, to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 15 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9.     The Court notes that in application no. 31344/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Brăila Police Inspectorate and Galați Prison, which ceased on 26 March 2015 by his transfer, for more than three months, to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 28 May 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. 16634/16 and 31344/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 11.     The Court further observes that in application no. 31329/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Galați Prison, which ceased on 24 April 2012 by his transfer, for more than three months, to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 28 May 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. The Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion, even if the Government have not raised that objection ( Sabri Güneş v. Turkey , [GC], no. 27396/06, § 29, 29 June 2012). Accordingly, this part of the complaint in application no. 31329/16 has been introduced out of time 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, 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. 15.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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.” 17.     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. 18.     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. 16634/16, 31329/16, 31344/16 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   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]     20049/15 13/05/2015 Oniță Călin 11/05/1977     Rahova Prison 15/07/2014 to 15/10/2015 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s) 2.4 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food 3,000     55303/15 29/03/2016 Teodor Fodor 16/09/1982 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Aiud Prison 18/02/2013 pending More than 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s) 2.1-2.8 m² Overcrowding (save for the periods 16-19/03/2015, 27/07/2015-12/10/2015, 14/01/2016-21/03/2016 and 01-07/07/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     58539/15 17/03/2016 Ioan-Nicolae Rafailă 01/09/1968     Sibiu County Police Inspectorate, Aiud, Arad and Iași Prisons and Dej Prison Hospital 29/01/2006 15/03/2019 13 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s) 1.5-2.6 m² Overcrowding (save for Aiud Prison before 24/11/2009, Arad Prison and Dej Prison Hospital), no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   5,000     11190/16 04/07/2016 Gerard-Alexandru Avramescu 13/09/1968     Buzău County Police Inspectorate, Focșani and Mărgineni Prisons 09/08/2013 pending More than 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s) 1.3-1.9 m² Overcrowding (save for Buzău County Police Inspectorate), lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for shower 5,000     16634/16 15/04/2016 Marian-Costinel Stoica 18/08/1984     Craiova Prison 23/11/2015 to 06/06/2016 6 month(s) and 15 day(s) 1.6-1.9 m² Overcrowding (save for the period 29/05/2016-06/06/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture 1,000     20780/16 23/05/2016 Mihai Petrișor 03/08/1975     Craiova and Pelendava Prisons 08/12/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 14 day(s) 1.4-2.7 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     31325/16 28/05/2016 Lucian Berescu 28/01/1993 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați Police Inspectorate and Galați and Brăila Prisons 02/01/2014 pending More than 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 20 day(s) 1.1-1.9 m² Overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     31329/16 28/05/2016 Adrian Lupu 18/08/1986 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați and Brăila Prisons 03/08/2012 pending More than 6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1.6-1.9 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     31344/16 28/05/2016 Marian Mustafa 16/08/1988 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila Prison 01/07/2015 pending More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s) 1.5-1.6 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, insufficient time and inadequate space in courtyard, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell 3,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.