CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s85E63AB5 { width:153.27pt; 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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF SPOIALĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 10549/16 and 10 other applications - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 5 August 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   STRASBOURG   27 June 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Spoială and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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.     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 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. 10.     These applications are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     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. 13.     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 27 June 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström 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]     10549/16 20/05/2016 Nicolae-Dan Spoială 29/09/1975     Iaşi Prison 12/05/2015 to 31/05/2016 1 year and 20 days 2.18 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture 3,000     15803/16 29/04/2016 Răzvan-Cristian Mureşan [2] 25/06/1991     Cluj Police and Gherla Prison 09/12/2013 pending More than 5 years, 4 months and 4 days 2.4-2.96 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food 5,000     20685/16 03/05/2016 Vasile Tomoiaga 16/12/1977     Rahova and Gherla Prisons 18/07/2014 pending More than 4 years, 8 months and 24 days 2.21-2.74 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate furniture, insufficient number of sleeping places, mouldy or dirty cell 3,000     26091/16 07/06/2016 Gheorghe Topuzu 30/01/1957     Craiova Prison 19/11/2014 pending More than 4 years, 4 months and 23 days   1.26-1.88 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 3,000     27437/16 06/06/2016 Mircea Ionașcu 19/08/1972     Dolj Police, Craiova and Jilava Prisons 17/11/2004 pending More than 14 years, 4 months and 26 days 1.25-2.6 m² overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell 5,000     28484/16 11/07/2016 Gheorghe Constantin 24/07/1980     Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 24/06/2014 pending More than 4 years, 9 months and 18 days 1.37-1.93 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,000     33177/16 31/05/2016 Ioan-Iosif Medve 13/10/1983 Rareș Vasile Biro Satu Mare Arad Police and Arad Prison 19/06/2013 to 26/08/2016 3 years, 2 months and 8 days 4.35-5.8 m 2 no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water 3,000     37648/16 02/08/2016 Gheorghe Gheorghe 30/03/1952 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons 20/02/2005 to 21/07/2016 11 years, 5 months and 2 days 1.6-2.5 m² overcrowding, insufficient sanitary facilities, lack of privacy for toilet (in Bucharest Central Arrest), lack of fresh air, 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 potable water 5,000     37810/16 13/07/2016 Marian-Ionuț Crăciun 09/02/1989     Craiova Prison 28/09/2015 pending More than 3 years, 6 months and 15 days     1-1.6 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, inadequate sanitary facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food 3,000   43696/16 21/07/2016 Petrişor Covrig 03/10/1980 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galaţi and Brăila Prisons 08/01/2015 pending More than 4 years, 3 months and 4 days 1.6 - 2.4 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, dirty and mouldy cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air 3,000   44431/16 26/07/2016 Alexandru Miron 26/05/1949 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila Prison 10/11/2015 pending More than 3 years, 5 months and 2 days 1.66 -2.05 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate furniture 3,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Rectified on 5 August 2019: the text was: “ 25/06/1981”