CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 } .s5765B769 { height:104.65pt } .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 PĂILĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 26096/16 and 9 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 22 February 2024     STRASBOURG 15 December 2022     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Păilă and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 November 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.     In application no. 46144/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the loss of victim status by the applicant for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because he was 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 applicant in application no.   46144/16, and he was, 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 application no. 46144/16 are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible 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 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 ‑ 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 case-law on the subject (including its findings in the 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 appended table, were inadequate. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In applications nos. 26096/16, 26903/16, 27242/16, 66507/16 and 71424/16, 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 for the periods specified in the appended table below; 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   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]     26096/16 08/06/2016 Ionuţ Răzvan PĂILĂ 1988     Codlea Prison 02/09/2014 to 26/07/2016 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 25 day(s) 2.71-2.95 m² overcrowding (save for the period 30/10/2015-26/07/2016), bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture   3,000     26903/16 24/08/2016 Dorel Ionel PAVEL 1981     Aiud Prison 14/05/2012 to 05/07/2012 1 month(s) and 22 day(s) 1.95 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water     1,000     27242/16 01/06/2016 Alin-George ŞTEPAN 1989     Craiova, Drobeta-Turnu-Severin, Pelendava and Târgu-Jiu Prisons 28/11/2011 to 17/01/2017 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s) 1.27-1.98 m² overcrowding, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell   5,000     46144/16 26/08/2016 Ion-Mihai DINCĂ 1969     Mioveni (Colibaşi), Craiova and Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prisons; Mioveni (Colibaşi) Prison Hospital   12 periods between 26/01/2016 and 12/04/2019 for a total duration of 3 years and 28 days     infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water 114 days in compensation for a total period of 594 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions in Argeş County Police facilities, Mioveni (Colibaşi), Craiova and Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prisons, between 13/08/2015 and 12/04/2019, except for the periods mentioned in column no. 5 3,000     51607/16 19/09/2016 Bogdan Ioan FOCȘA 1979     Iaşi Prison 23/12/2019 to 11/04/2020 3 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2.43-2.86 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water   1,000     66489/16 28/03/2017 Aurel SORA 1969 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital 04/03/2013 to 17/11/2016 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s) 1.28-2.9 m² overcrowding (save for 06/03/2013-17/10/2013, 10-30/06/2014, 09-26/06/2015, 18-25/10/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water   3,000     66507/16 01/11/2016 Gheorghe STELEA 1959     Craiova, Târgu-Jiu, Rahova, Jilava and Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prisons 25/01/2013 to 25/05/2016 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s) 1.04-2.71 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   3,000     67070/16 19/12/2016 Iulian-Sorin LINTE 1979 Linte Ilie Curtea de Arges Mioveni (Colibaşi), Târgu-Jiu, Tulcea and Găeşti Prisons; the Outer Section Chilia-Veche of Tulcea Prison and the Outer Section GAZ of Târgu Jiu Prison; Colibaşi Prison Hospital 28/05/2015 to 26/07/2017 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s) 1.37-2.86 m² overcrowding (save for 23/09/2015-15/02/2016, 16-23/06/2015, 27-28/02/2017, 26/06/2017-04/07/2017), inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell   3,000     71424/16 25/01/2017 Gheorghe Moșoi ZARAFIM 1970     Iași, Craiova and Poarta-Albă Prisons 28/03/2007 to 23/07/2012 5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 day(s) 1.31-2.12 m² overcrowding (save for 27/10/2008-23/02/2009), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food   5,000   18113/17 07/06/2017 Aurel GHIȚU 1959     Rahova Prison 30/05/2016 to 09/08/2017 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 11 day(s) 1.78-2.44 m² overcrowding (save for 16/01/2017-09/08/2017), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food   3,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.