CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28233/16 Daniel DON against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   May   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12   May 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Daniel Don, was born in 1967. He was represented by Mr R.L. Chiriţă, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his pre-trial detention from 13 to 19   November 2015 (six days) in the Cluj County Police Station. He alleged that he had been allocated 4 sq. m of personal space in a multi-occupancy cell. He mainly claimed that there was constant electric light and a lack of fresh air and of natural light, that the cell was infested with insects, the temperature was inadequate (at 15-16 degrees Celsius), the food was of a poor quality, and the detainees were responsible for cleaning the cell but without having been provided with the necessary items. He further submitted that access to toilet was upon request only, showering was scheduled twice a week, and the access to medical assistance was also restricted to twice a week and subject to a prior request. The Government, based on official information provided by the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police, submitted that the applicant was detained from 14   to 19   November 2015 (five days) in the Cluj County Police Station and that he had at his disposal personal space of 4.92 sq. m in a multi ‑ occupancy cell. Such official information further showed, among other aspects, that the cell temperature was between 20   and 25 degrees Celsius; there were no insects, rodents, mould or other anti-sanitary issues in the cell where the applicant was detained; the provided food ensured the necessary daily calorie-intake; the detained persons were responsible for cleaning the cell with products either provided or purchased; they were provided with toiletries and allowed access to showers based on a schedule, twice per week or whenever necessary; the access to toilet was upon request, and the cell had only an indoor window, but the applicant was allowed the possibility of minimum one hour of outdoor exercise. The Court observes that, based on the official information submitted by the Government it is confirmed that the applicant was held in pre-trial detention from 14   to 19   November 2015 (five days) in the Cluj County Police and that he disposed of 4.92 sq. m of personal space, which is above the relevant minimum standard established by the Court of 3 sq. m of floor surface per detainee in multi‑occupancy accommodation (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 107 and 136, 20 October 2016). As regards some of the remaining aspects of the physical conditions of detention, the Court notes that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the detention facility of the Cluj County Police Station in February 2018. The CPT essentially noted that all detainees were provided with more than 4 sq.   m of personal space and that the health care staffing levels of general practitioners and nurses appeared to be adequate, but that none of the cells had any direct access to natural light and the yard was very small and entirely covered by an acrylic glass roof panel. The Court recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, in cases where a detainee disposed of more than 4 sq. m of personal space in multi-occupancy accommodation in prison and where therefore no issue with regard to the question of personal space arises, other aspects of physical conditions of detention remain relevant for the Court’s assessment of adequacy of an applicant’s conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Muršić , cited above, § 140). Taking into account the particular circumstances of the present case, especially the very short length of the applicant’s detention and the lack of overcrowding, as well as other aspects of physical conditions of detention, the Court considers that, while the lack of natural light and proper ventilation and exercise in open air is regrettable, the discomfort experienced by the applicant during that short period of detention is insufficient to find that the minimum threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention is reached. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President