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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 SUDITU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 44216/15 and 10 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 Suditu 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.     THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE-OUT PART OF APPLICATION No. 16208/16 6.     By letter received on 19 March 2018, the applicant informed the Court that he had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 169/2017 and therefore asked the Court to strike-out the part of his application covering the period of his detention after 24   July   2012 – the date from which the compensatory remedy automatically applied. 7.     In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention) and it should thus be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     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.” 9.     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). 10.     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. 11.     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. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 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.     Decides to strike part of application no. 16208/16, covering the detention period after 24 July 2012, out of its list of cases;   3.     Declares the remainder of the applications admissible;   4.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   5.     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]     44216/15 03/11/2015 Andrei Suditu 01/05/1964     Jilava Prison 06/03/2015 to 18/04/2016 1 year and 1 month and 13 days 1.8 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 06/03-08/03/2015, 08/10/2015-18/01/2016, 19/01-20/03/2016, 11/04-17/04/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell 3,000     52981/15 22/03/2016 Gheorghe Negoiță 25/04/1988     Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons 30/07/2015 to 06/09/2017 2 years and 1 month and 8 days 1.9-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 21/10/2015-06/09/2017), lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     527/16 10/02/2016 Gheorghe Bratu 13/03/1978     Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 04/12/2012 pending More than 6 years and 3 months and 16 days 1.3 - 1.6 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 24/09-30/09/2013, 23/04/2014-30/06/2015, 14/07/2015-ongoing), lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet 5,000     2529/16 22/03/2016 Ioan Palanceanu 03/05/1977     Codlea Prison 03/02/2015 to 23/05/2016 1 year and 3 months and 21 days 1.4-1.6 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     4376/16 15/02/2016 Tibor Majlát 19/12/1991     Miercurea Ciuc Prison 01/11/2013 to 18/04/2018 4 years and 5 months and 18 days 1.3-1.8 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     10359/16 05/07/2016 Fred-Valeriu Toader 11/09/1968     Iași Police Inspectorate, Iași Prison 26/01/2015 to 08/09/2016 1 year and 7 months and 14 days   Iași Prison 22/01/2018 to 26/03/2018 2 months and 5 days 1.2-2.8 m²                 1.2 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, bunk beds (Iași Prison), lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature     overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature 3,000     16208/16 20/04/2016 Sorin Gavrilov 12/02/1980     Brăila, Galați, Poarta Albă, Rahova and Tulcea Prisons, Jilava and Tărgu Ocna Hospital Prisons 25/01/2000 to 24/07/2012 12 years and 6 months 1.2-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for 28/06/2002-08/10/2003, 23/06-12/10/2005, 05/06/2007-16/05/2008 and for other short periods of time: 2 months and 2 days maximum), poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 5,000     17225/16 11/05/2016 Dumitru-Viorel Sîmbeteanu 23/08/1990     Bacău Police Inspectorate, Târgu Ocna and Rahova Prison Hospitals, Bacău, Iași, Focșani and Vaslui Prisons 03/04/2009 pending More than 9 years and 11 months and 17 days 1.3-2.9 m² overcrowding (save for Târgu Ocna and Rahova Prison Hospitals, save for the periods of 03/04-05/05/2009 and 06/03-18/09/2015), mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food (save for Rahova and Târgu Ocna Prison Hospitals), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 5,000     21575/16 27/05/2016 Ionel Alexandru 26/06/1978     Dolj County Police Inspectorate, Craiova Prison 13/07/2009 to 29/05/2017 7 years and 10 months and 17 days 1.1-2.8 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 21-27/08/2013), no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 5,000   31339/16 28/05/2016 Marius Ceamă 17/04/1989 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila Police Inspectorate, Galați and Brăila Prisons 15/12/2014 pending More than 4 years and 3 months and 5 days 1.5-2.9 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, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air (save for in Brăila Prison) 3,000   59911/16 07/10/2016 Vasile Șerban 13/09/1985 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați and Brăila Prisons 04/08/2015 pending More than 3 years and 7 months and 15 days 1.5-2.2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, small courtyard 3,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.