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 } .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 } .sE6E2B3B2 { text-align:justify; 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 PĂDUREANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 25404/15 and 9 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 Pădureanu 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. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16, 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. 53366/15 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Brăila Prison, which ceased on 12   December 2008 by his transfer to other detention facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 25   February 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9.     The Court further observes that in application no. 13180/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 2 July 2014 by his transfer to other detention facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 4   April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10.     The Court notes that in application no. 15784/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 26 January 2005 by his transfer to other detention facilities 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. 11.     The Court further notes that in application no. 17807/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 3 July 2014 by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 27   April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 12.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objections and finds that these parts of the applications nos. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16 were lodged out of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 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, 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 applications nos. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16 inadmissible;   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 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]     25404/15 12/06/2015 Dorin Pădureanu 07/02/1991 Cristina Elena Vlăsceanu Pogoanele Ploiești and Focșani Prisons 29/01/2013 to 07/09/2015 2 years and 7 months and 10 days 0.9-1.9 m² overcrowding (save for in Ploiești Prison), lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000     53366/15 25/02/2016 Dorinel Mocanu 23/10/1972     Brăila Prison 05/06/2015 to 13/06/2017 2 years and 9 days 2-2.5 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 05-17/06/2015, 14/07-03/08/2015, 04-05/08/2015, 06/08-17/11/2015), lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000     61250/15 11/03/2016 Valer-Marius Pál 02/06/1969     Miercurea Ciuc Prison 16/11/2015 to 17/01/2017 1 years and 2 months and 2 days 2 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 11-17/12/2015, 22/12/2015-21/01/2016, 26/01/2016-17/01/2017), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell 3,000     12455/16 21/03/2016 Ștefan-Adrian Bulgariu 31/12/1985 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Târgoviște Police Inspectorate, Mărgineni, Ploiești and Găești Prisons 06/01/2004 to 07/10/2015 11 years and 9 months and 2 days 1.2 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 06/11/2013-07/10/2015), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     13180/16 04/04/2016 Marius ‑ Marian Ghiţă 30/10/1979     Craiova Prison 29/02/2016 to 21/11/2016 8 months and 24 days           0.9-1.8 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food 1,000     14118/16 04/04/2016 Gheorghe Faur 10/02/1987     Jilava Prison Hospital, Aiud, Arad, Miercurea Ciuc, Mărgineni and Codlea Prisons 12/07/2013 to 10/06/2016 2 years and 10 months and 30 days             Codlea Prison 04/04/2018 pending 11 months and 15 days     1.5-2.6 m²                         1.6-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 12-18/07/2013, 26/11-09/12/2013, 17/01-06/02/2014, 14-27/03/2014, 09-15/05/2014, 01-10/07/2014, 29/08-04/09/2014, 22/12/2014-12/03/2015, 31/03-14/04/2015, 27/04-21/05/2015, 10/08/2015, 23/12/2015, 15-21/04/2016,), inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, small courtyard   overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell 3,000     14124/16 23/02/2016 Marius ­ Bogdan Nejloveanu 11/08/1987     Giurgiu Prison 16/12/2013 to 16/05/2016 2 years and 5 months and 1 day   Giurgiu Prison 14/09/2018 pending 6 months and 5 days   1.5 m²           1.5 m²     overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air       overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air 3,000     15784/16 06/04/2016 Marian Neagoe 24/10/1978     Craiova Prison 08/06/2006 pending More than 12 years and 9 months and 11 days 1.1-2.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture 5,000     17807/16 27/04/2016 Marian Păun 13/02/1982     Craiova Prison 15/01/2015 to 04/08/2016 1 year and 6 months and 21 days 0.9-2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000   19476/16 28/04/2016 Ion Uțoiu 04/02/1963     Craiova Prison 30/08/2010 to 20/07/2016 5 years and 10 months and 21 days 1.2-2.1   m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 24/01-19/05/2011, 22-29/12/2011, 22/11-05/12/2012, 17-28/12/2015, 12-20/07/2016), lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, small courtyard 5,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.