CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 février 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCD0BD88E { height:60.15pt } .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 DUŢĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 5836/16 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 25 February 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Duţă 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 4 February 2021, 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 all applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no.   254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention. 8.     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 details see the appended table). 9.     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. 10.     Turning to the periods of the applicants’ detention, as specified in the appended table, 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). 11.     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. 12.     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. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In application no. 51171/16 , the applicant also complained under Article   3 of the Convention in relation to a period of detention preceding the period specified in the appended table. 15. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit. 16.     It follows that this part of the application no. 51171/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 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 complaints 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 25 February 2021, 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 Year of birth Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     5836/16 26/04/2016 Gheorghe DUŢĂ 1967 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Bucharest Police Station no. 19, Rahova and Jilava Prisons   07/12/2014 to 31/03/2016   1 year, 3 months and 25 days 1.9 - 2.4 m² overcrowding (save for the period between 07/12/2014 - 06/01/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 150 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 01/04/2016 - 13/09/2017 and 27/10/2017 - 27/06/2018 3,000     42371/16 01/09/2016 Zoltán-Robert KOZÁK 1986     Rahova, Codlea, Gherla, Giurgiu, Miercurea-Ciuc, Aiud, Mărgineni Prisons and Colibași and Dej Prison Hospitals   02/07/2008 to 23/07/2012   4 years and 22 days   Miercurea-Ciuc and Aiud Prisons   24/12/2019 to 09/03/2020   2 months and 15 days 1 - 2,8 m²                           overcrowding (save for the period between 15/12/2008 - 27/04/2009, 19-24/07/2010, 16-21/12/2010), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of requisite medical assistance       534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019 3,000     45088/16 26/07/2016 Sorin TRONARU 1977 Mărgărit Ionela Bucarest Galaţi and Brăila Prisons   24/12/2019 Pending   More than 1 year and 28 days 1 - 1,8 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food 516 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 26/10/2012 - 23/12/2019 3,000     46874/16 07/11/2016 Marian-Gheorghiţă AMARIEI 1977     Brașov County Police, Codlea, Jilava, Mărgineni, Poarta Albă, Aiud, Iași, Galați, Gherla, Arad, Colibași, Craiova Prisons and Dej, Rahova and Colibași Prison Hospitals   12/10/2004 to 23/07/2012   7 years, 9 months and 12 days   Aiud Prison   10/08/2020 Pending   More than 5 months and 6 days 1 - 2 m²                         overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to running water           480 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019 5,000     51171/16 09/11/2016 Blenis SHYTI 1983     Constanța County Police, Poarta Albă, Jilava, Rahova, Tulcea and Slobozia Prisons   02/09/2005 to 23/07/2012   6 years, 10 months and 22 days   Slobozia Prison   24/12/2019 Pending   More than 1 year and 23 days 1 - 2,5 m²                                 overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities     534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019 5,000     51231/16 24/11/2016 Costică STOICA 1959 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Cluj County Police, Dej and Jilava Prison Hospitals, Aiud, Deva, Jilava, Gherla, Colibași, Rahova and Timișoara Prisons   18/02/2005 to 23/07/2012   7 years, 5 months and 6   days   Deva Prison   24/12/2019 Pending   More than 1 year and 23 days 1,2 - 2,5 m²                                     overcrowding (save for the periods between 18/02/2005 - 05/12/2005, 08/02/2007 - 07/03/2007, 30/08/2007 - 20/09/2007, 06/12/2007 - 16/02/2009, 16/03/2009 - 09/04/2009, 20/08/2009 - 15/10/2009, 12/11/2009 - 12/06/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to potable water 504 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019 5,000     77814/16 03/01/2017 Valer PĂDUREAN 1967     Aiud, Rahova and Deva Prisons   07/06/2012 to 23/07/2012   1 month and 17 days   Deva Prison   24/12/2019 Pending   More than 1 year and 28 days 1,6 - 2,9 m²               overcrowding, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air     540 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.