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 ORGHIDAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 62744/15 and 11 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 Orghidan 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 applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period were lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 15616/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Mărgineni Prison, namely from 9   July   2009 until 15 March 2012, preceding a period of detention of more than seven months in respect of which the applicant did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 18 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the relevant period. 9.     The Court further observes that in application no. 43703/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Brăila and Galați Prisons, which ceased on 13 November 2014 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 21 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objections and finds that these parts of applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. 11.     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). 12.     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. 13.     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. 14.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     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.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible   and the remainder of applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16 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]     62744/15 07/05/2016 Marian Orghidan 20/03/1986   Timișoara Prison 24/12/2015 to 09/06/2016 5 months and 17 days 2.6 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 24/12/2015-14/01/2016), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food   1,000     11623/16 14/04/2016 Ionel-Viorel Cojocaru 03/10/1993   Craiova Prison 18/07/2014 to 28/07/2016 2 years and 11 days 1.1-1.7 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 31/08-01/09/2014), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   3,000     15616/16 18/04/2016 Cristian Buga 10/01/1968   Miercurea Ciuc, Ploiești, Ploiești - Movila Vulpii External and Găești Prisons 01/11/2012 to 28/09/2016 3 years and 10 months and 28 days 1.2-2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 24/12/2015-29/09/2016), no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of toiletries, bunk beds   3,000     19605/16 03/06/2016 Constantin Stărpu 05/03/1981   Neamț County Police Inspectorate, Jilava Hospital Prison, Bacău and Iași Prisons 29/08/2011 to 11/10/2016 5 years and 1 month and 13 days   2.1 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 21/09-06/11/2012), lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet 5,000     24464/16 24/05/2016 Cătălin Buzică 20/12/1984 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest Facilities, Rahova, Jilava and Găești Prisons 19/03/2012 to 08/12/2015 3 years and 8 months and 20 days 1.3 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 20/01-08/12/2015), lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   3,000     30850/16 17/06/2016 Dănuț Dumitru 10/01/1978   Galați Prison 12/12/2008 to 08/11/2018 9 years and 10 months and 28 days 1.2-2.5 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 31/03-10/07/2015, 21/07-12/08/2015, 08/09-06/10/2015, 09/10-27/11/2015, 08-24/12/2015, 29/12/2015-22/01/2016, 05-26/02/2016, 04/03-04/05/2016, 10-31/05/2016, 14-23/06/2016, 26/06-19/08/2016, 26/08/2016-07/02/2017), lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to running water   5,000     32368/16 04/07/2016 Săndel Stoica-Chirica 08/04/1989   Galați Prison 09/04/2010 to 11/07/2016 6 years and 3 months and 3 days 2 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light   5,000     34677/16 11/08/2016 Gheorghiţă Tofan 26/02/1981 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Bucharest Police Inspectorate nos. 1 and 10, Rahova, Jilava and Brăila Prisons 13/10/2014 – pending More than 4 years and 5 months and 29 days 1.6-2.7 m² overcrowding (save for the periods of 04/03-02/08/2015, 09-10/11/2015, 12/01/2016-onwards), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food   3,000     37326/16 15/07/2016 Vasile-Ioan Dihoiu-Bloj 09/04/1980   Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc and Iași Prisons 09/04/2013 – pending More than 6 years and 1 day 1.2-1.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, small courtyard     5,000   38551/16 21/07/2016 Constantin-Adrian Vasile 15/10/1984   Slobozia Prison 11/02/2016 – pending More than 3 years and 1 month and 30 days 1.9-2 m² overcrowding (save for the period of 31/01-02/02/2017), poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   3,000   43703/16 21/07/2016 Dănuţ-Maricel Mustaţă 03/09/1980 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați and Brăila Prisons 12/06/2015 – pending More than 3 years and 9 months and 29 days 1.2-1.8 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, small courtyard, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell   3,000   53417/16 22/09/2016 Marian Botezatu 18/07/1982   Galați Prison 15/06/2007 – pending More than 11 years and 9 months and 28 days 1.5 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   5,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.