CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; 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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s9CD3E884 { height:81.25pt } .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 PĂTROI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 38581/16 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 October 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pătroi 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 22 September 2022, 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 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 principally 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 Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status by some of the applicants 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 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 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 59, 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 caselaw on the subject, (including its findings in the recent case of Polgar v. Romania , no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the table appended bellow, were inadequate. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In applications nos. 38581/16, 41914/16, 57510/16, 62644/16, 19411/17, 28475/17 and 78165/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 18.     The Court further 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, for the periods 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, as specified in the appended table bellow; 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 13 October 2022, 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 by national authorities Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     38581/16 19/07/2016 Ionuț-Valentin PĂTROI 1987   Craiova Prison 14/11/2016 to 07/12/2016 24 day(s)   Arad Prison 17/07/2017 to 14/12/2017 4 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Tîrgu Jiu Prison 22/04/2020 to 24/08/2021 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2.12-2.18 m² infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding save for detention in Arad Prison and for 22/04-13/05/2020), mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature 337 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 08/11/2013 to 07/11/2016, from 07/12//2016 to 17/07/2017 and from 14/12/2017 to 26/03/2019 3,000     41914/16 11/08/2016 Petru VEZETEU 1960 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Giurgiu and Poarta Albă Prisons 11/11/2010 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)   Jilava and Poarta Albă Prisons 24/12/2019 to 14/11/2020 10 month(s) and 22 day(s) 1.3 - 2 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, toilet and potable water, inadequate temperature 534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019 3,000     57510/16 16/11/2016 George-Marian ZAI 1982   Dej Prison Hospital - a total of 91 days, distributed over several periods of time from 23/01/2014 to 13/12/2016 91 day(s) 4 m² lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of potable water 252 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 09/01/2014 to 31/10/2017, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 1,000     62644/16 21/11/2016 Marius CHIREA 1968   Craiova Prison 29/04/2014 to 12/05/2014 14 day(s)   Craiova Prison 18/04/2016 to 30/05/2016 1 month(s) and 13 day(s) 1,15-1,42 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 01/05/2013 to 16/11/2018, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 1,000     7190/17 16/01/2017 Alexandru-Ovidiu CIRCA 1982 Nicoleta Trif Arad Turnu Severin Police, Dej Prison Hospital and Craiova, Drobeta Turnu Severin and Gherla Prisons 20/09/2011 to 23/07/2012 10 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Dej Prison Hospital and Arad Prison 31/08/2012 to 26/11/2015 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1.29-2.08 m² overcrowding for certain periods of time, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food 192 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 30/08/2012 and from 26/11/2015 to 10/07/2018 3,000     10973/17 02/03/2017 Laurențiu HORIA 1982   Târgu Jiu Prison 24/12/2019 to 17/03/2020 2 month(s) and 23 day(s)   lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature 480 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 21/04/2013 to 23/12/2019 1,000     12530/17 20/06/2017 Jose Israel ARENAS RUIZ 1974 Claudia Nadina Daciana Cândea Timișoara Timișoara Prison 01/08/2015 to 17/12/2015 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Arad Prison 19/02/2016 to 18/02/2019 3 year(s) 2-5.8 m² overcrowding while in Timișoara Prison (2 m2), lack of or insufficient natural and electric light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell 36 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 02/07/2015 to 01/08/2015 and from 17/12/2015 to 19/02/2016 3,000     19411/17 19/06/2017 Viorel-Florin ROȘU 1976 Cezara-Maria Nichita-Costescu Timișoara Arad Prison 27/12/2016 to 06/11/2017 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) 1.74 m² overcrowding for 30/10-06/11/2017, lack of or insufficient natural light and fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell 102 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 06/11/2017 to 19/04/2019 1,000     22087/17 08/03/2017 Sandor-David BERGER 1975 Sergiu-Cătălin Hercuț Oradea Satu Mare Prison 24/12/2019 to 10/03/2020 2 month(s) and 16 day(s) 1.72 m² overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 16/02/2012 to 14/09/2016 and from 15/01/2018 to 23/12/2019 1,000   28475/17 02/05/2017 George TOMPAS 1980   Giurgiu Prison 27/02/2017 to 16/10/2017 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Giurgiu Prison 10/05/2018 to 05/09/2018 3 month(s) and 27 day(s) 2.94 m² overcrowding for certain periods of time, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature 300 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/07/2013 to 05/09/2018, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 1,000   78165/17 20/12/2017 Oprea PULBERE 1958   Bucharest Police, Jilava Prison Hospital and Rahova Prison 01/05/2011 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 23 day(s) 2.14 m² overcrowding while in Rahova Prison, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell 390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 05/01/2018 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.