CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB3159364 { width:123.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s18256AE5 { width:0.95pt; 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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s12BD6E64 { width:4.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s677CB06F { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCA782226 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9415D4CC { width:15.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF7BDA8 { width:7.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6EB4BC61 { width:12.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCE65D11C { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6908FA57 { width:15.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s186AE97F { width:4.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s151F9C91 { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC5A8E418 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78F48731 { width:15.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s71AE9EA8 { width:7.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECE8726B { width:12.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5BD9D34E { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F054E52 { width:15.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 GUŢEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 35120/20 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Guţea and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anja Seibert-Fohr , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 March 2024, 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 application no. 38527/20, 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 finds that the relevant parts of application no.   38527/20 (details described in the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant was, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of his detention, specified in the appended table. Those parts of application no. 38527/20 must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention. 9.     The Government further argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at the domestic level, and invited the Court to declare these applications inadmissible. 10.     The Court recalls that in Polgar v. Romania , no. 39412/19, §§ 94-96, 20 July 2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles 1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v. Romania , (dec.), no.   122/17, §§ 30-33, 15 November 2022). 11.     However, the applicants in the present applications either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13   January 2021 or continue to be held in such conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations (for the periods specified in the appended table). 12.     Turning to the 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). 13.     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. 14.     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. 15.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 16.     In applications nos. 35301/20, 37831/20, 38376/20, 45844/20, and 47170/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention served during other periods. 17.     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. 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 18.     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, for the periods specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that there has been a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table; 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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anja Seibert-Fohr   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 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]     35120/20 30/08/2020 Silviu Ionel GUŢEA 1975 Teleorman County Police Station; Alexandria County Police Station; Giurgiu, Jilava and Rahova Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital 09/02/2003 to 23/07/2012 9 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)   Jilava Prison 24/12/2019 to 19/06/2023 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28 day(s)   The applicant continues being held in detention in allegedly poor conditions, after 19/06/2023, that is the period which is not the subject of the present application 2.08 – 2.42 m²     overcrowding (save for the period between 21/01/2004-23/07/2012), lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents     5,000     35301/20 21/09/2020 Dumitru PRIALA 1969 Gherla Prison 07/09/2022 pending More than 1 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 4 day(s) 1.86 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell     3,000     37831/20 17/09/2020 Ilie PAPA 1977 Craiova Prison 26/08/2022 pending More than 1 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 26 day(s) - mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities     3,000     38376/20 18/09/2020 Bebe NICOLAE 1977 Rahova and Tulcea Prisons 27/10/2021 to 11/08/2023 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s)   The applicant continues being held in detention in allegedly poor conditions, after 11/08/2023, that is the period which is not the subject of the present application 2.57 – 2.8   m² overcrowding (save for the periods between 27/10//2021-10/01/2022, and 18/03/2022-11/08/2023), poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities     3,000     38527/20 27/09/2020 Daniel Iulian VOICU 1990 Craiova Prison 24/12/2019 to 19/10/2022 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 26 day(s)   The applicant continues being held in detention in allegedly poor conditions, after 19/10/2022, that is the period which is not the subject of the present application   2.01 – 2.83 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature 96 days in compensation for a total period of 488   days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 22/08/2018 – 23/12/2019 3,000     38536/20 29/09/2020 Valentin CREȚU 1966 Craiova and Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prisons 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2.01 – 2.81 m² overcrowding (save for the period between 22/11/2021-14/03/2022), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell     3,000     40257/20 26/10/2020 Victor ZĂGREAN 1974 Jilava and Găești Prisons 23/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) 1.93 – 2.08 m² overcrowding (save for the period between 12/08/2020-28/09/2021 and from 31/03/2022 onwards), lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower     3,000     40635/20 08/10/2020 Cristinel GHEORGHIŢĂ 1991 Galați and Giurgiu Prisons 24/12/2019 to 28/07/2020 7 month(s) and 5 day(s)   Giurgiu Prison 01/08/2020 to 13/06/2021 10 month(s) and 13 day(s)   Giurgiu and Brăila Prisons 17/06/2021 pending More than 2 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 6 day(s)   2,25 m²         overcrowding (save for the periods between 25/01/2020-17/03/2020, 03/09/2020-11/11/2020, 16/06/2021-05/07/2021, and 16/07/2021-20/07/2021), poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities     3,000     45844/20 16/11/2020 Arif KORKMAZ 1970 Rahova, Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 24/12/2019 to 06/09/2021 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)   Giurgiu Prison 13/09/2021 pending More than 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 9 day(s)     2.44 – 2.90 m²     overcrowding (save for the periods between 24/12/2019-06/03/2020, 21/10/2020-19/05/2021, 14/09/2021-13/04/2022, and from 09/09/2022 onwards), poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water     3,000   47170/20 31/12/2020 Florin URZICĂ 1981 Arad Prison 24/12/2019 to 09/12/2021 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 16 day(s)   The applicant continues being held in detention in allegedly poor conditions, after 09/12/2021, that is the period which is not the subject of the present application - poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell   3,000   54870/20 18/01/2021 Robin ÖTVÖS 1981 Gherla and Târgu Mureș Prisons 31/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s) 2.06 – 2.78 m² overcrowding (save for the periods between 31/12/2019-21/07/2020, 12/09/2020-14/09/2020, and 26/01/2021-22/02/2021), bunk beds, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.