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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sEDF32997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; 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 ŢURLEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 25480/15 and 9 other applications - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 22 August 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     STRASBOURG   16 May 2019             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ţurlea 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.     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. IV.     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 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]     25480/15 16/06/2015 Ștefan Ţurlea 01/01/1963 Iaşi Prison 28/05/2009 to 01/06/2014 5 years and 5 days   Tulcea Prison 01/06/2014 to 30/11/2014 6 months   Rahova Prison 01/12/2014 to 01/03/2015 3 months and 1 day   Vaslui Prison 01/03/2015 pending More than 4 years and 20 days 1.26 -1.98 m²         1.81-1.95 m²         1.95-2.79 m²         1.95 m² Overcrowding, lack or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate furniture       Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate furniture         Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate furniture         Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate furniture 5,000     49413/15 26/10/2015 Ion Mitu 12/04/1981 Oradea, Poarta Albă, Tulcea, Slobozia and Rahova Prisons 28/08/2008 pending More than 10 years, 6 months and 21 days 1,76-2.09 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water 5,000     51261/15 05/11/2015 Jozsef Hendre [2] 08/03/1970   Represented by Augustin-Viorel Ţigan, Ceica Oradea Prison 22/06/2012 to 16/10/2013 1 year, 3 months and 25 days   Satu Mare Prison 16/10/2013 pending More than 5 years, 5 months and 5 days 1.9-2.88 m²           0.7-1.1 m² Overcrowding, lack or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air       Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air     5,000     53704/15 08/12/2015 Dan Perju 02/12/1961   Represented by Mirela-Olimpia Pușcă, Bârlad Bârlad Police, Vaslui Police, Vaslui, Jilava and Iaşi Prisons 22/08/2000 pending More than 18 years, 6 months and 27 days 1.28-1.89 m² Bârlad Police and Vaslui Police: overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food Vaslui Prison: overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, heavy smells from the chicken factory nearby, poor quality of food Jilava and Iaşi Prisons: overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food   5,000     57106/15 11/12/2015 Florian Ovidiu Gergely 19/08/1980 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 14/08/2014 pending More than 4 years, 7 months and 7 days 2.05-2.54 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cells, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, bunk beds, lack or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     60729/15 02/02/2016 Florinel-Mircea Partin 14/06/1986 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 31/05/2012 pending More than 6 years, 9 months and 21 days 1.52-2.08 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient furniture, lack or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     5693/16 09/05/2016 Mădălin Vasile 02/02/1983 Poarta Albă Prison 09/02/2015 pending More than 4 years, 1 month and 12 days 1.51-2.72 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, insufficient number of sleeping places,lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient hygienic facilities 3,000     11446/16 31/03/2016 Costel Crețu 02/04/1957 Jilava Prison 11/12/2014 pending More than 4 years, 3 months and 10 days 1.52-2.34 m² Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food 3,000     12102/16 13/06/2016 Gyula Kaszoni 13/05/1962   Represented by Dan Alberto Pop, Cluj-Napoca Gherla Prison 21/01/2016 pending More than 3 years and 2 months 1.98-2.94 m² Overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient hygienic facilities, poor quality of food 3,000   59888/16 07/10/2016 Titel Antohe 09/07/1980   Represented by Ionela Mărgărit, Bucharest Brăila Prison 18/12/2015 pending More than 3 years, 3 months and 3 days 1.59-2.29 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. 2.     Rectified on 22 August 2019: the text was: “Joszef”.