CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sADF8F600 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 PĂUN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 6036/16 and 9 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 June 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Păun 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 16 May 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 application no. 15645/16 the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention had been lodged out of time. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint regarding his detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on the 17 May 2006 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, wad lodged with the Court on the 19 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that this part of the application was lodged outside of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 8.     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). 9.     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. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the continuous situation of the applicants’ conditions of detention in some cases, 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. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     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. 14.     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 application no. 15645/16 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 6 June 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]     6036/16 21/03/2016 Viorel Păun 25/11/1973     Bucharest General Police Inspectorate, Galați and Brăila Prisons 28/03/2012 to 05/07/2016 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s) 1.2-2.2 m² overcrowding (save for Bucharest General Police Inspectorate and the periods 17-18/03/2015 in Galați Prison and 14 ‑ 24/07/2015, 07/08/2015-12/01/2016, 05/02-05/07/2016 in Brăila Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     9363/16 25/03/2016 Marian-Florian Drăgoi 29/11/1988     Codlea, Arad, Miercurea Ciuc and Aiud Prisons 13/01/2009 pending More than 10 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 30 day(s) 1.2-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for Arad Prison and the periods 12-17/08/2015, 11-12/06/2015, 30/06-01/07/2015, 14-15/12/2015, 19-20/01/2016, 19-20/05/2016, 14-15/07/2016, 11-12/08/2016), poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   5,000     15507/16 20/07/2016 Florin-Dorel Andrei 25/11/1978 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova, Colibași and Giurgiu Prisons 22/06/2010 to 06/03/2019 8 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s) 1.9-2.7 m² overcrowding (save for Giurgiu Prison), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water (Giurgiu Prison) 5,000     15645/16 19/04/2016 Constantin Benzină 25/12/1977     Craiova Prison 31/08/2006 to 28/10/2016 10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s) 1.1-2.2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture 5,000     17635/16 25/04/2016 Cosmin Paul Carcel 16/02/1988     Aiud Prison 04/05/2012 pending More than 6 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 8 day(s)   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     20640/16 11/07/2016 Ioan Grădinaru 07/11/1986     Iași Prison 14/12/2010 to 26/07/2016 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2.1 m² overcrowding (save for the period 12-17/09/2012), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries 5,000     23689/16 25/05/2016 Levente Derzsi 22/11/1989     Miercurea-Ciuc, Târgu ‑ Mureș, Rahova, Mărgineni, Aiud Prisons 07/10/2009 to 23/12/2016 7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Aiud Prison 20/12/2017 pending More than 1 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 22 day(s) 1.5-2.7 m²     overcrowding (safe for the periods 28-31/05/2012, 23/05 ‑ 18/06/2013, 23-24/12/2013), lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools     5,000     24120/16 15/06/2016 Emil Iorga 26/09/1966     Bacău Police County Inspectorate, Bacău, Iași, Rahova and Tulcea Prisons, Poarta Albă and Târgu Ocna Prisons Hospitals 11/07/2009 to 06/03/2017 7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 24 day(s) 1.1-2.9 m² overcrowding (save for Poarta Albă Hospital Prison and for the period 05-08/10/2010), poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 5,000     31322/16 28/05/2016 Daniel Penghiș 29/11/1990 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați Police Inspectorate and Tichilești, Galați and Brăila Prisons 09/03/2011 pending More than 8 year(s) and 1 month(s) 1.5-2 m² overcrowding (save for the period 15/04-06/05/2011), 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 fresh air, inadequate temperature, 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   44489/16 26/07/2016 Ionel Chicoș 08/03/1968 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați and Brăila Prisons 08/01/2016 to 07/09/2016 8 month(s) 1.5-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the periods 08-29/01/2016 and 18/02 ‑ 01/03/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 1,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.