FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF PÄ‚DUREANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application s no s . 25404/15 and 9 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 May 2019

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

In the case of Pădureanu 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 2 5 April 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 applications 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 .

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 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. In applications nos. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six ‑ month time-limit, claiming that the applicants ’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged out of the time.

8. The Court observes that in application no. 53366/15 the applicant ’ s complaint regarding his initial detention in Br ăila Prison, which ceased on 12 December 2008 by his transfer to other detention facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 25 February 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

9. The Court further observes that in application no. 13180/16 the applicant ’ s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 2 July 2014 by his transfer to other detention facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 4 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

10. The Court notes that in application no. 15784/16 the applicant ’ s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 26 January 2005 by his transfer to other detention facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

11. The Court further notes that in application no. 17807/16 the applicant ’ s complaint regarding his initial detention in Craiova Prison, which ceased on 3 July 2014 by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 27 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

12. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government ’ s objections and finds that these parts of the applications nos. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16 were lodged out of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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 applicant s ’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17. 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.”

18. 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.

19. 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. 53366/15, 13180/16, 15784/16 and 17807/16 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these applications 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 16 May 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]

25404/15

12/06/2015

Dorin Pădureanu

07/02/1991

Cristina Elena Vlăsceanu

Pogoanele

Ploiești and Focșani Prisons

29/01/2013 to

07/09/2015

2 years and 7 months and 10 days

0.9-1.9 m²

overcrowding (save for in Ploiești Prison), lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

3,000

53366/15

25/02/2016

Dorinel Mocanu

23/10/1972

Brăila Prison

05/06/2015 to

13/06/2017

2 years and 9 days

2-2.5 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods of 05-17/06/2015, 14/07-03/08/2015, 04-05/08/2015, 06/08-17/11/2015), lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

3,000

61250/15

11/03/2016

Valer -Marius Pál

02/06/1969

Miercurea Ciuc Prison

16/11/2015 to

17/01/2017

1 years and 2 months and 2 days

2 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods of 11-17/12/2015, 22/12/2015-21/01/2016, 26/01/2016-17/01/2017), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell

3,000

12455/16

21/03/2016

Ștefan -Adrian Bulgariu

31/12/1985

Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Târgoviște Police Inspectorate, Mărgineni , Ploiești and Găești Prisons

06/01/2004 to

07/10/2015

11 years and 9 months and 2 days

1.2 m²

overcrowding (save for the period of 06/11/2013-07/10/2015), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

5,000

13180/16

04/04/2016

Marius ‑ Marian Ghiţă

30/10/1979

Craiova Prison

29/02/2016 to

21/11/2016

8 months and 24 days

0.9-1.8 m²

overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food

1,000

14118/16

04/04/2016

Gheorghe Faur

10/02/1987

Jilava Prison Hospital, Aiud , Arad, Miercurea Ciuc , Mărgineni and Codlea Prisons

12/07/2013 to

10/06/2016

2 years and 10 months and 30 days

Codlea Prison 04/04/2018 pending

11 months and 15 days

1.5-2.6 m²

1.6-2.4 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods of 12-18/07/2013, 26/11-09/12/2013, 17/01-06/02/2014, 14-27/03/2014,

09-15/05/2014, 01-10/07/2014, 29/08-04/09/2014, 22/12/2014-12/03/2015, 31/03-14/04/2015, 27/04-21/05/2015, 10/08/2015, 23/12/2015, 15-21/04/2016,), inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, small courtyard

overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell

3,000

14124/16

23/02/2016

Marius ­ Bogdan Nejloveanu

11/08/1987

Giurgiu Prison

16/12/2013 to

16/05/2016

2 years and 5 months and 1 day

Giurgiu Prison

14/09/2018

pending

6 months and 5 days

1.5 m²

1.5 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air

overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air

3,000

15784/16

06/04/2016

Marian Neagoe

24/10/1978

Craiova Prison

08/06/2006

pending

More than 12 years and 9 months and 11 days

1.1-2.9 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture

5,000

17807/16

27/04/2016

Marian Păun

13/02/1982

Craiova Prison

15/01/2015 to

04/08/2016

1 year and 6 months and 21 days

0.9-2 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

3,000

19476/16

28/04/2016

Ion Uțoiu

04/02/1963

Craiova Prison

30/08/2010 to

20/07/2016

5 years and 10 months and 21 days

1.2-2.1 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods of 24/01-19/05/2011, 22-29/12/2011, 22/11-05/12/2012, 17-28/12/2015, 12-20/07/2016), lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, small courtyard

5,000

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