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 } .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 } .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 } .s6816E8B1 { height:49.3pt } .s1C7A9706 { text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sDC9A3D28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; 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 FLORIAN PETRICĂ CĂLIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 55593/15 and 8 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 Florian Petrică Călin 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”). 3.     By letters of 28 August and 31 October 2018, the applicants in applications nos. 19322/16 and 29129/16 informed the Court that their last names had changed, respectively, from Mafteiu to Pîntea and from Broboană to Pațachia. On 5 and 17 December 2018, the Court advised the parties that it will continue processing the applications under the names of Mafteiu v. Romania and Broboană v. Romania , since this corresponds to the applicants’ names as referred to in the applications lodged with the Court. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     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 7.     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.” 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, 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. 11.     These applications 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 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 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 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]     55593/15 02/02/2016 Florian Petrică Călin 12/03/1982 Colibași Prison 06/11/2014 to 20/07/2018 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s) 1.84-2.74 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities 3,000     56200/15 07/12/2015 Marian Gîndac 06/09/1988 Miercurea-Ciuc Prison 21/05/2015 to 24/04/2017 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s) 1.57-2.10 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     4059/16 18/04/2016 Vasile-Alexandru Brăteanu 11/10/1970 Oradea, Jilava, Aiud and Arad Prisons, and Dej Prison Hospital 27/02/2003 to 31/01/2019 15 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2.07-2.76 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet 5,000     4275/16 22/02/2016 Dumitru Baroga 28/06/1965   Represented by Irina   Maria Peter, Bucharest Bucharest 15th Police Department, Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 17/09/2010 to 04/01/2017 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1.1-2.8 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature 5,000     9215/16 09/03/2016 Paul Drăghici 28/01/1985 Tulcea, Rahova and Poarta Albă Prisons 02/04/2013 to 01/02/2018 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) 1.38-2.44 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature 3,000     17567/16 23/03/2016 Florin-Lucian Grădinaru 16/07/1986 Miercurea-Ciuc Prison 12/03/2015 to 25/07/2016 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s) 1.5-2.14 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     17858/16 18/05/2016 Nicolae Pavel 02/01/1969 Codlea and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons 29/04/2013 to 29/11/2016 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s) 1.16-2.81 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, bunk beds 3,000     19322/16 28/04/2016 Gheorghe-Sorin Pîntea (formerly   Mafteiu) 12/02/1974 Vaslui County Police, Vaslui, Rahova, Giurgiu and Iași Prisons 18/04/2008 pending More than 10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s) 1.28-2.45 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000     29129/16 28/06/2016 Mioara Pațachia (formerly   Broboană) 20/02/1975 Craiova Prison 21/09/2010 pending More than 8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1.17-2.33 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature 5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.