Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DUMITRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application no. 23365/15 and 9 other application s -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 June 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Dumitrescu and Others v. Romania ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President, Marko Bošnjak, Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2019 ,

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 . Notice of the application s was given to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3 . The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicant s complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In applications nos. 58173/15 and 2387/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. 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.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The applicant s 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. The Court notes that the applicant s were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant s ’ 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, MurÅ¡ić 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 MurÅ¡ić , cited above, §§ 122 ‑ 141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 159, 10 January 2012).

8. In the leading case of RezmiveÈ™ 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.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government ’ s objection concerning the continuous situation of the applicants ’ conditions of detention in some of the cases, 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 applicant s ’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11. In applications nos. 58173/15 and 2387/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

12. 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, they 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 these parts of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, RezmiveÈ™ and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum s indicated in the appended table.

15. The Court 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 58173/15 and 2387/16 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention ;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 June 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani

Acting D eputy 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

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

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]

23365/15

15/06/2015

Virgil Dumitrescu

06/05/1979

Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Bucharest 10th Police Arrest

14/11/2012 to

18/12/2012

1 month and 5 days

Rahova Prison

18/12/2012 to

24/12/2013

1 year and 7 days

Giurgiu Prison

24/12/2013 to

21/07/2014

6 months and 28 days

Jilava Prison

21/07/2014 to

21/01/2016

1 year , 6 months and 1 day

3.2 m²

2 m²

0.7 m²

1 - 2 m²

lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, bunk beds, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, no place to serve meal, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

overcrowding (save for the period between 21/02- 30/05/2014), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture

overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no place to serve meal, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water

3,000

51328/15

08/10/2015

Vasile Negrea

07/11/1984

Brașov Police Arrest

23/04/2015 to

07/07/2015

2 months and 15 days

lack of fresh air, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking

1,000

58173/15

05/01/2016

Florin-Bogdan-Robert Anghel

08/02/1991

Rahova Prison

30/03/2015 to

13/06/2016

1 year , 2 months and 15 days

1.9 - 2.7 m²

overcrowding (save for the period 17/09 - 02/10/2015)

3,000

2387/16

28/01/2016

Nicu Greere

01/03/1985

Olt Police Arrest

30/03/2015 to

29/04/2015

1 month

Craiova Prison

29/04/2015 to

07/07/2016

1 year , 2 months and 9 days

4.1 m²

1.3 - 1.6 m²

lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

3,000

9201/16

04/03/2016

Ioan Dălălău

01/05/1970

Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Mureş Police Arrest, Târgu Mureş, Jilava, Arad, Aiud, Deva, Bistriţa, Gherla Prisons and Jilava, Rahova, Colibaşi and Dej Prison Hospitals

10/04/2001 to

25/01/2017

15 years , 9 months and 16 days

1.4-2.7 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods between 29/08-05/09/2011, 22/06/2012 - 10/01/2013, 24/06- 10/07/2014, 09/10- 28/10/2014 and 27/01- 09/02/2015), poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of potable water (Jilava Prison), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature

5,000

37544/16

15/07/2016

Petre Argeșanu

25/10/1972

Colibași Prison

28/10/2014 to

14/06/2017

2 years , 7 months and 18 days

2.2 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods between 25/11/2016 - 21/04/2017 and 27/04- 25/05/2017), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, bunk beds

3,000

39582/16

01/08/2016

Lucian-Mihai Covaci

03/08/1982

Aiud Prison

22/08/2014 to

28/03/2017

2 years , 7 months and 7 days

2.4 - 2.6 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods between 16-26/04/2015, 23/06- 15/09/2015 and 08/12/2015 - 29/02/2016), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

3,000

44255/16

13/09/2016

Georgică Apetri

02/08/1975

Colibași Prison

09/03/2015 to

04/05/2017

2 years , 1 month and 26 days

2.2 - 2.5 m²

overcrowding (save for the period between 10-14/05/2016), 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, bunk beds, inadequate temperature

3,000

44296/16

08/02/2017

Ancu Ion

22/01/1974

Bucharest Central Arrest, Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons

19/11/2013 to

15/11/2016

2 years , 11 months and 28 days

1.6 - 2.8 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods between 07/04- 16/06/2015, 22/07- 05/08/2015 and 19/08- 05/10/2015), lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

3,000

59877/16

07/10/2016

Marian Pătrașcu

03/04/1984

Ionela Mărgărit

Bucharest

Galați Police Arrest

19/07/2013 to

16/09/2013

1 month and 29 days

Galați and Brăila Prisons

16/09/2013

pending

More than 5 years , 6 months and 19 days

2.3 m²

1.3 - 2.5 m²

overcrowding

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to potable water (Galați Prison)

5,000

[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

CASE OF DUMITRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF DUMITRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI