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 } .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 PISĂU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 61145/15 and 13 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 Pisău 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. In application no. 6670/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 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 APPLICANTS’ REQUESTS TO STRIKE-OUT PART OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 6670/16 AND 15699/16 6.     By letter received on 20 December 2017, in application no.   6670/16, and by letter received on 11 July 2018, in application no. 15699/16, the applicants informed the Court that they had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 169/2017 and therefore asked the Court to strike-out the part of their applications covering the period of their detention after 24 July 2012 – the date from which the compensatory remedy automatically applied. 7.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these parts of the applications. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list of cases. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     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.” 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, as well as the Government’s objections concerning the continuous situation of the applicants’ conditions of detention in some of the 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. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In application no. 6670/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined this application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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. 17.     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 applications nos. 6670/16 and 15699/16, covering their detention period after 24 July 2012, out of its list of cases;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 6670/16 inadmissible;   4.     Holds that these complaints 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 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]     61145/15 25/01/2016 Iulian Pisău 03/04/1983   Craiova Prison 18/07/2014 to 05/03/2019 4 years and 7 months and 16 days 1.1-2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   3,000     6670/16 01/04/2016 Daniel Pană 02/10/1979   Giurgiu and Colibași Prisons 21/01/2011 to 24/07/2012 1 year and 6 months and 4 days 1.5-2.3 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air   3,000     9300/16 31/05/2016 Mihai Roşca 07/04/1972 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Slobozia, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 05/08/2008 to 12/12/2016 8 years and 4 months and 8 days 1.2-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 10/10/2012-19/03/2013), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature, small courtyard   5,000     9365/16 29/06/2016 Petrișor-Marian Volintiru 13/06/1961   Dolj Police Inspectorate, Craiova, Jilava, Rahova and Pelendava Prisons, Jilava, Colibași, Dej and Rahova Prison Hospitals 19/04/2002 to 03/03/2017 14 years and 10 months and 13 days 1.2-2.3 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 12/09/2014-03/11/2016), poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   5,000     10914/16 12/02/2016 Alexandru Enache 19/11/1973 Nicoleta Mircioi Bucharest Jilava and Găești Prisons 26/09/2013 to 12/08/2015 1 year and 10 months and 18 days 1.1-2.7 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 04/05-12/08/2015), poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water   3,000     15687/16 12/04/2016 Florentin Florea 02/12/1967   Craiova Prison 28/11/2015 to 26/01/2017 1 year and 1 month and 30 days     1.4-1.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 3,000     15699/16 31/05/2016 Constantin-Lucian Spînu 30/12/1973   Bucharest Police Section no.   13 and no. 6, Jilava Prison Hospital, Rahova, Jilava, Colibași and Giurgiu Prisons 16/01/2006 to 24/07/2012 6 years and 6 months and 9 days 1.4-2.6 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 24/01-13/04/2007, 30/03-24/07/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature   5,000     25740/16 13/07/2016 Petrişor-Mihai Atincăi 29/10/1985   Iași Prison 26/04/2007 to 20/10/2016 9 years and 5 months and 25 days             Iași Prison 08/03/2018 – pending More than 1 year and 1 months and 4 days 1.2-2.1 m²                   1.2 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 31/08-05/09/2011, 28/01-02/02/2014, 16-26/05/2014, 11-15/12/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower   overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower   5,000     32529/16 27/05/2016 Angelo Petrovici 30/12/1998   Buziaș Minors Education Centre 25/03/2015 to 06/06/2016 1 year and 2 months and 13 days 2.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, small courtyard   3,000   33999/16 09/07/2016 Gheorghe Vasile 02/01/1979 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova, Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 19/03/2013 to 08/05/2017 4 years and 1 months and 20 days 1.3-2 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 21/10/2013-16/11/2015, 20/11/2015-08/09/2016, 26/09/2016-08/05/2017), poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, small courtyard   3,000   39944/16 12/08/2016 Marius Nicolae 14/12/1982   Dolj Police Inspectorate, Craiova, Jilava, Rahova, Slobozia, Poarta Albă, Ploiești, Drobeta Turnu Severin, Mărgineni, Miercurea Ciuc, Pelendava and Vânjuleț Prisons 30/12/2004 to 19/12/2016 11 years and 11 months and 20 days 1.2-2.8 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 15/01-28/05/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature 5,000   40858/16 11/10/2016 Adrian-Mihai Pavel 07/11/1980 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova, Giurgiu, Mărgineni and Colibași Prisons 20/02/2008 to 07/06/2017 9 years and 3 months and 19 days 1.3-2.9 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 16-21/04/2008, 04/05-02/06/2015, 30/06/2015-07/03/2016, 14/03-14/07/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature   5,000   43685/16 15/07/2016 Gheorghe Grigore 01/01/1958 Diana-Elena Dragomir Bucharest Colibași Prison 15/01/2016 to 21/02/2017 1 year and 1 month and 7 days 1.8-2.7 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen   3,000   1916/17 19/12/2016 Gheorghe-Mirel Firoiu 22/03/1983   Vâlcea Police Inspectorate, Colibași, Jilava, Rahova and Târgu Jiu Prisons 27/02/2004 to 13/12/2016 12 years and 9 months and 17 days 2 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 22/08/2013-13/12/2016), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.