CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juillet 2023

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; 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 } .sF5DDD244 { width:144.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ASAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 33798/16 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 July 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Asan and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2023, 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. 7.     As regards the admissibility of the applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status for certain periods of detention specified in the appended table because adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences was afforded for those specific periods of detention. 8.     The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the 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). The Court therefore accepts the Government’s objection and finds that a part of application no. 47561/16 (the relevant details described in the appended table) is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant was, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention, specified in the appended table. This part of the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article   35 §§   3(a) and 4 of the Convention. 9.     Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention, the details of which are indicated 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). 10.     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. 11.     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 indicated in the appended table were inadequate. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Remaining complaints 13.     In applications nos. 33798/16 and 46804/16 the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods. 14.     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 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. 15.     It follows that this part of the two 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention admissible 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; 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 6 July 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Tim Eicke   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 [1]     33798/16 20/07/2016 Constantin-Nicolae ASAN 1991       Craiova, Drobeta Turnu-Severin Prisons 16/09/2013 to 03/02/2017 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s) 0.94 - 2.06 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air etc.   3,000     35352/16 02/08/2016 Ovidiu Nicolae SARCINĂ 1989     Târgu Jiu Prison 25/06/2015 to 01/11/2016 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s) 1.41 - 1.84 m² overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air etc.   3,000     39669/16 12/09/2016 Mario VITTIGLIO 1966 Lancia Manuela Colfelice Rahova, Jilava and Colibași (Mioveni) Prisons; Rahova Prison Hospital 28/07/2015 to 27/07/2017 2 year(s)   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   3,000     46804/16 30/09/2016 Robert-Marian PREDOI 1986     Deva Prison 28/06/2016 to 20/03/2017 8 month(s) and 22 day(s)   Deva Prison 08/05/2017 to 05/09/2017 3 month(s) and 29 day(s)   overcrowding lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen       3,000     47245/16 03/08/2016 Senol ZEVRI 1962     Constanța Poarta Albă Prison 09/05/2014 to 04/02/2016 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1.67-2.61 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of fresh air   3,000     47561/16 13/09/2016 Florin-Daniel VOICU 1983     Bucharest Rahova Prison 19/05/2018 to 02/08/2018 2 month(s) and 15 day(s)   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents 282 days in compensation for a total period of 1,434 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/12/2013-16/03/2018 1,000     5521/17 23/12/2016 Csaba LADANY 1978 Trif Nicoleta Arad Arad County Police Station, Arad and Timisoara Prisons, Mioveni and Dej Prison Hospitals 19/02/2015 pending More than 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2.03-2.77 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, overcrowding   5,000     11363/17 20/03/2017 Vasile PAPUC 1957     Iași Prison 05/06/2011 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture   3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.