FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application s no s . 1659/16 and 7 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court

in a judgment of 16 July 2020

STRASBOURG

16 May 2019

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

In the case of Grancea 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 25 April 2019 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

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 . In applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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, 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. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

12. The Court has examined these applications 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.

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 in all applications admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16 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 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

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]

1659/16

04/02/2016

Traian-Ioan Grancea

06/07/1979

Miercurea Ciuc Prison

21/05/2014

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s)

1.4 m²

Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light.

3,000

7791/16

17/03/2016

Costel -Cornel Calinciuc

04/10/1979

Represented by

Ionuţ Iulian Vasilache

Vaslui

Bucharest Police Section no. 6, Rahova , Tulcea and Vaslui Prisons

19/09/2009 to

17/05/2016

6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)

1.1 - 2.44 m²

Overcrowding (save for the period of 20/12/2013 - 17/05/2016 in Vaslui Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.

5,000

8981/16

08/02/2016

Károly -Antonio Dioszegi

11/08/1985

Represented by

Adrian- Samuilă Rusu ,

Cluj-Napoca

Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons

21/05/2015 to

05/11/2015

5 month(s) and 16 day(s)

1.8 - 2.9 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food.

1,000

12910/16

28/06/2016

Vlad-Florian Stancu

19/09/1984

Giurgiu Prison

19/11/2014

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)

2.33 - 2.91 m²

Overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.

3,000

12961/16

25/03/2016

Paul- Dumitru Cazbir

26/11/1977

BraÅŸov Police, Codlea , Jilava and Arad Prisons

09/08/2002

pending

More than 16 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 day(s)

0.3 - 2.4 m²

Overcrowding (save for the period 05/08/2011 to 16/02/2017 in Arad Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.

5,000

13680/16

25/04/2016

Levente Mihok

25/05/1974

Harghita Police

10/03/2005 to

26/05/2005

2 month(s) and 17 day(s)

Miercurea Ciuc Prison

26/05/2005

pending

More than 13 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28 day(s)

2.76 m²

1.5 - 2.2 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food

Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise

in fresh air.

5,000

19346/16

18/08/2016

Sorin Vulpeanu

29/08/1987

Arad Prison

18/05/2015

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s)

3.9 – 5.8 m²

No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food.

3,000

19706/16

09/05/2016

Petru -Robert Sîrb

06/03/1978

Miercurea Ciuc Prison

05/11/2013

pending

More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s)

1.33 - 2.41 m²

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

5,000

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