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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s7814D254 { width:3.68%; 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 } .s701D86C8 { width:10.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A027DBB { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s98FA9FD8 { width:21.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s437875E3 { width:9.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB3F9575 { width:19.24%; 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 } .sCACE867B { width:3.68%; 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 } .s86D35963 { width:10.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28E3E608 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s782381CF { width:21.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DCD69E9 { width:9.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7B8BDFE { width:19.24%; 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 DEDIU AND CHILAT v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 43087/16 and 77261/16)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 March 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dediu and Chilat 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 under Article 3 of the Convention about 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 during the periods specified in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 7.     The Government 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. 8.     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). 9.     However, both applicants continue to be held in such conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 10.     The Court further observes 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). 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, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods specified 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 both applications, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention served during other periods. 15.     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 16.     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 these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for 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.   {signature_p_2}   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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     43087/16 25/08/2016 Iulian DEDIU 1981 Galaţi Prison 13/09/2022 pending More than 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1.80-2.94   m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature 3,000     77261/16 04/01/2017 Cristian CHILAT 1969 Miercurea Ciuc Prison 02/03/2023 pending More than 9 month(s) and 17 day(s) 1.7-2.71   m² overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, constant electric light 1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.