CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 avril 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s2757F5B8 { width:154.27pt; 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 } .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 } .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 NÁDASDY AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 29930/16 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 29 April 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nádasdy 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 April 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. Following the death of Mr Ghica (application no. 37508/16), his widow and children informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application introduced by the applicant. 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 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. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 37508/16 6.     On 8 January 2020, after the communication of the case, the Government informed the Court that the applicant in application no.   37508/16, Mr   Ghica, had died on 16 February 2019, while in detention. They requested for the application to be struck out from the Court’s list of cases, arguing that the complaints related to the conditions of detention have a strictly personal character and that the alleged violations were not closely linked to the death of the applicant. 7.     On 26 August 2020 the applicant’s widow, Ms Stana Ghica and his children, Mr Cristina-Daniel Ghica and Mr Viorel-Marian Ghica, expressed their intention to pursue the application. At a later date they submitted an inheritance certificate, listing all three of them as heirs. 8.     This document was communicated to the Government for information on 21 December 2020. They did not submit any   comments in relation to it. 9.     The Court considers that the provided document is sufficient to prove the legal standing of Ms Stana Ghica, Mr Cristina-Daniel Ghica and Mr   Viorel-Marian Ghica as heirs. Moreover, the Court considers that the applicant’s relatives have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see , mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12   January 2016). The Government’s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected. 10.     Accordingly, the Court decides that Ms Stana Ghica, Mr   Cristina ‑ Daniel Ghica and Mr Viorel-Marian Ghica have standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 37508/16 on behalf of late Mr   Ghica. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     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. 13.     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). 14.     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. 15.     Turning to the remaining 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). 16.     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. 17.     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 during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate. 18.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 19.     In applications nos. 41706/16, 59848/16 and 67993/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table. 20.     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, these complaints 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. It follows that these parts of applications nos. 41706/16, 59848/16 and 67993/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 21.     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.” 22.     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. 23.     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; Decides that Ms Stana Ghica, Mr Cristina-Daniel Ghica and Mr   Viorel ‑ Marian Ghica, the widow and children of the applicant in application no.   37508/16, have locus standi in the proceedings; 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, jointly, the heirs of the deceased applicant, Mr Ghica, and each of the remaining 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 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina   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 or jointly to heirs of the applicant, where relevant (in euros) [1]       29930/16 19/05/2016 Andreas NÁDASDY 1967 Adriana-Elena Nádasdy Giroc Arad Prison   03/06/2015 to 04/08/2016   1 year and 2 months and 2 days 4.35 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, lack of toiletries   120 days in compensation for part of the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 11/05/2015-2/04/2018, except for the period mentioned in Column no. 5 3,000     37508/16 08/08/2016 Cornel GHICA Born in 1954 Died on 16/02/2019   Heirs:   Stana Ghica 1959   Cristian-Daniel Ghica 1984   Viorel-Marian Ghica 1988     Brăila Police Station 21/08/2012 to 11/09/2012 22 days   Brăila Police Station 17/09/2012 to 01/11/2012 1 month and 16 days 2,61 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell 450 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 02/11/2012 to 16/02/2019, with the exception of 31 days spent in the several prison hospitals, detention facilities of which the applicant did not complain 1,000     41706/16 30/09/2016 Constantin PREDA 1969   Focșani Prison 24/12/2019 to 10/02/2020 1 month and 18 days   Focșani Prison 02/10/2020 Pending More than 4 months and 24 days   1.54-2.15 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet 528 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019 1,000     59848/16 07/11/2016 Gheorghe CONSTANTIN 1978   Craiova and Tirgu Jiu Prisons   24/12/2019 – pending More than 1 year and 2   months and 20 days 1.46-2.22 m² Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature   456 days in compensation for part of the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019 3,000     67993/16 12/01/2017 Andrei-Ovidiu CRISTEA 1980   Miercurea Ciuc Prison   24/12/2019 – pending   More than 1 year and 2   months 1.52-2.09 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food     276 days in compensation for part of the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/03/2016 to 23/12/2019 3,000     50819/19 21/11/2019 Mihai BÂGU 1994   Arad Prison   15/04/2018 – pending   More than 2 years and 10   months and 11 days   inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water   54 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 17/07/2017 to 14/04/2018 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.