CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sA6E7EA24 { width:174.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s50040358 { width:255.75pt; 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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4B93DBE2 { width:4.66%; 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 } .sE65610BE { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9D14DE99 { width:12.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5DB90B56 { width:14.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF2D5420D { width:6.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s49C2CA3B { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBB71A2E { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFD6DAC91 { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8FD6C6AF { height:110.7pt } .s159C2C89 { width:4.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s98B497B1 { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6DA3E66E { width:12.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s19635E27 { width:14.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE564958 { width:6.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s862A0ED6 { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s2802653D { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE23C005D { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9DF6E884 { height:81.55pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF JIDOVOIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application nos. 40930/15 and 8 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 November 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jidovoiu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2020, 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.     The Romanian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention. THE LAW 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. 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 application no. 40930/15, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicant’s complaints regarding his initial detention period had been lodged out of time. 8.     The Court observes that in application no. 40930/15 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibaşi and Craiova Prisons, which ceased on 03/05/2005 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 29 September 2015, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9 .     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that this part of application no. 40930/15 was lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 10.     The Government also raised a preliminary objection concerning all applicants’ loss of victim status for periods of detention as indicated in the appended table. The Government claimed that the applicants were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those respective periods of detention. 11 .     The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and   Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23-33, 15   April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for further details see the appended table). 12.     Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 13.     Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention, the Court notes that they 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). 14.     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. 15.     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. 16.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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.” 18.     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. 19.     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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as specified in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention; 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 5 November 2020, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Armen Harutyunyan 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] Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically     40930/15 29/09/2015 Gheorghe JIDOVOIU 05/06/1972 Craiova, Colibași and Târgu-Jiu Prisons   04/08/2005 to 24/07/2012 6 years and 11 months and 21 days 1.76 – 1.93 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, moldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking 5,000 408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 06/03/2018.     51982/15 16/12/2015 Walter IONESCU 29/05/1974 Ploieşti, Jilava, Iaşi and Mărgineni Prisons   23/06/2003 to 24/07/2012 9 years and 1 month and 2 days 0.9 - 1.6 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light       5,000 414 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 10/04/2018.     52308/15 25/11/2015 Gheorghe HOTEA 23/04/1963   Represented by Vasile Rareș BIRO Satu Mare Maramureş County Police Station and Gherla Prison   18/06/2010 to 24/07/2012 2 years and 1 month and 7 days 1.2 - 2.5 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air 3,000 408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 03/04/2018.       56274/15 09/12/2015 Neculai PASCARIU 04/05/1958   Represented by Vasile Frasin PASCARIU   Neamţ County Police Station, Bacău, Tulcea, Iaşi, Poarta-Albă and Vaslui Prisons   22/10/2010 to 24/07/2012 1 year and 9 months and 3 days 1.2 - 2.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture 3,000 402 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 09/05/2018.       56333/15 20/01/2016 Dorel MANAFU 24/03/1970 Colibaşi and Craiova Prisons   03/04/2012 to 24/07/2012 3 months and 22 days 1.8 m² - 2 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light 1,000 294 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 14/01/2019.     61958/15 04/02/2016 Marian TOMA 29/12/1953 Bucharest Police Section no. 13 and Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons   30/09/2010 to 24/07/2012 1 year and 9 months and 25 days 2 - 2.7 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light 3,000 396 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 18/01/2018.       3672/16 09/03/2016 Ionel GURGU 02/12/1990 Tichileşti, Galaţi and Brăila Prisons   28/09/2011 to 24/07/2012 9 months and 27 days 1.3 - 3 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water 1,000 390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 19/12/2017.       5471/16 10/02/2016 Virgil VLAD 22/10/1979 Buzău County Police Station   30/01/2015 to 05/03/2015 1 month and 6 days 1.2 - 1.6 m²   mouldy or dirty cell, bunk beds, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 1,000 198 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 05/03/2015 and 06/12/2017.       9141/16 07/03/2016 Ioan PETRE 06/02/1981 Bucharest Police Detention Facilities no. 7 and 11 and Rahova, Mărgineni and Jilava Prisons   21/04/2010 to 24/07/2012 2 years and 3 months and 4 days 1 - 1.7 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, bunk beds 3,000 348 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 29/12/2017.       [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.