Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MIHALI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application no. 625/15 and 8 other s -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2017

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

In the case of Mihali and O thers v. Romania ,

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

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2017 ,

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 applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some 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 applicants 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 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, 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 pilot 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 applicants ’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

11. The applicant in application no. 42700/15 complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the refusal of his request for conjugal visits during pre-trial detention from 31 May 2013 to 24 December 2013. As observed by the Government, this complaint was raised on 23 November 2015 and is thus inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the six ‑ month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, it must be declared inadmissible.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. The applicants in applications nos. 625/15, 7523/15 and 34015/15 also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.

V . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. 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 sums indicated in the appended table.

16. 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 the applications nos. 625/15, 7523/15, 34015/15 and 42700/15 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 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 14 December 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Vincent A. De Gaetano

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 name

Date of birth

Representative 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]

625/15

29/04/2015

Cristian Mihali

21/06/1972

MaramureÈ™ Police Inspectorate

25/06/2013 to

27/06/2013

3 day(s)

Baia Mare Penitentiary

28/06/2013 to

27/02/2015

1 year(s) and 8 month(s)

Baia Mare Penitentiary

08/03/2016

pending

More than 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 day(s)

0.7-2.8 m²

poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light

overcrowding

3,000

2340/15

12/03/2015

Adrian- Ionel Drăghici

20/05/1988

Timișoara Penitentiary

21/08/2014 to

29/02/2016

1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)

1.5-2.9 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

3,000

5789/15

20/01/2015

Vasile Ardeleanu

04/05/1986

Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary

21/08/2014 to

17/03/2015

6 month(s) and 25 day(s)

1.5-2.2 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light

1,000

7523/15

04/03/2015

Gheorghița Brănișteanu

31/01/1958

Craiova Penitentiary

14/08/2008

pending

More than 9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Târgșor Nou Penitentiary

09/03/2009 to

04/12/2015

6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s)

1.1-2.7 m²

1.5-2.7 m²

overcrowding

overcrowding (save for the periods of 15/09/2010 – 02/12/2010 and 06/12/2010 – 21/02/2013), inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

5,000

8615/15

11/03/2015

Adrian Teodor Codrea

28/07/1985

Gherla Penitentiary

10/06/2014 to

18/09/2015

1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 day(s)

1.7-2.8 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

3,000

23679/15

21/09/2015

Mihai Ivașcu

09/01/1975

Miercurea-Ciuc Penitentiary

06/02/2014

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)

1.4-1.9 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light

3,000

29127/15

10/06/2015

Marian-Marcel Drăguţ

21/07/1981

Zlate Laura

Gala È› i

Galați Penitentiary

09/02/2015 to

09/08/2016

1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)

1.6-2 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

3,000

34015/15

28/09/2015

Ioan -Marcel Achim

22/10/1961

Aiud Penitentiary

30/10/2014 to

24/02/2015

3 month(s) and 26 day(s)

Târgu Mureș Penitentiary

25/02/2015 to

11/10/2017

2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 17 day(s)

1.6-2.6 m²

1.8-2.2 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air

Overcrowding (save for the periods of 25/02/2015 – 17/11/2015 and 27/11/2015 – 28/12/2015), poor quality of food, lack of (regular) physical exercise in fresh air

3,000

42700/15

15/09/2015

Florinel Pisle

28/03/1978

Sălaj Police Inspectorate

31/05/2013 to

02/07/2013

1 month(s) and 3 day(s)

Oradea Penitentiary

02/07/2013 to

19/07/2016

3 year(s) and 18 day(s)

Baia Mare Penitentiary

20/01/2014 to

14/03/2014

1 month(s) and 23 day(s)

2.4 m²

2.08-2.5 m²

1.6 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of food

3,000

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

Menu

CASE OF MIHALI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF MIHALI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI