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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 SIMULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 17090/15 and 8 other applications - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   6 June 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Simulescu 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 applicant in application no. 17090/15 also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. 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 principally 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 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINT 11.     In application no.   17090/15, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the criminal proceedings, which lasted from 17 July 2006 until 7 October 2014, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 12.   The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicant had not pursued an action for tortious liability. 13.     In the case of Brudan v. Romania (no. 75717/14, § 68, 10 April 2018), the Court held that following its judgment in the case of Vlad and   Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06, and 2 others, 26 November 2013), the action for tortious liability had been included by the domestic courts as an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of proceedings, before both criminal and civil courts in Romania. In Brudan (cited above), the Court also found that the High Court for Cassation and Justice’s judgment of 30 January 2014, which consolidated the domestic case-law on actions for tortious liability, had acquired a sufficient level of certainty on 22   March 2015. It therefore concluded that this remedy must be exhausted, as of that date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see   Brudan , cited above, § 88). 14.     The present application was lodged with the Court on 6 April 2015, that is after 22 March 2015, and the applicant was therefore required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail himself of this domestic remedy (see Brudan , cited above, § 89). It appears from the case file that the applicant has not lodged an action for tortious liability before the domestic courts. 15.     Accordingly, the Government’s objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be upheld. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     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 admissible,   and the remainder of application no.   17090/15 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 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]     17090/15 06/04/2015 Claudiu Simulescu 06/12/1970 Anelis-Vanina Istrătescu, Bucharest Rahova Prison 07/10/2014 to 14/08/2015 10 months and 8 days   lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000     41093/15 19/11/2015 Petre-Cătălin Racolţea 28/01/1978 Mannix-Mihai Racolțea, Săcele Codlea, Mărgineni, Miercurea Ciuc Prisons, Rahova Prison Hospital 26/04/2011 pending More than 7 years, 11   months and 3 days 1.10-2.65 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food 5,000     1845/16 25/02/2016 Constantin-Daniel Vlădescu 12/08/1978     Olt Police, Craiova, Drobeta Turnu Severin and Pelendava Prisons and Colibași Prison Hospital 24/02/1998 pending More than 21 years, 1   month and 3 days   1.2 - 2.94 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or insufficient quantity of food 5,000     5648/16 11/02/2016 Constantin Năstase 27/11/1979 Irina Maria Peter, Bucharest Rahova, Giurgiu, Jilava and Găești Prisons 15/02/2008 to 13/01/2016 7 years, 10 months and 30 days 1.2- 2.73 m² Overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food 5,000     9135/16 16/03/2016 David Andronic 15/02/1992     Aiud Prison 24/10/2013 to 27/04/2018 4 years, 6 months and 4 days 1.64-2.6 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food 3,000     9207/16 09/03/2016 Vasile Pop 11/05/1959     Gorj Police, Târgu Jiu, Craiova and Drobeta Turnu Severin Prisons 19/10/2015 to 11/11/2017 2 years and 24 days 1.20-2.86 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of toiletries, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     12172/16 25/03/2016 Neculai Lupu 23/04/1974 Irina Maria Peter, Bucharest Focșani Police and Focșani, Galați, Jilava, Iași and Poarta Albă Prisons 16/10/2006 pending More than 12 years, 5   months and 12 days 1.3-2.89 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, 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, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of potable water, inadequate temperature   5,000     13207/16 05/04/2016 Bogdan Iftimie 22/11/1988     Bucharest Police Section no 6 17/02/2014 to 04/03/2014 16 days   Rahova, Iaşi, Jilava, Vaslui and Bacău Prisons 04/03/2014 to 18/11/2016 2 years, 8 months and 15 days   2.3 m²           1.28-2.93 m² overcrowding           overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or insufficient quantity of food 3,000     26119/16 30/05/2016 Alexandru Barbu 12/01/1979     Colibaşi, Mărgineni, Slobozia, Miercurea-Ciuc and Giurgiu Prisons 05/03/2003 pending More than 16 years and 21 days 1.27-2.79 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack or insufficient quantity of food 5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.