Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MATEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Applications nos. 32435/13, 34092/14, 46833/14, 48459/14, 49302/14, 51491/14, 52446/14, 53438/14, 54354/14, 54542/14, 54682/14, 55491/14, 56258/14, 58288/14, 59242/14, 60919/14, 61680/14 and 62661/14)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 12 October 2017.

STRASBOURG

7 April 2016

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

In the case of Matei and Others v. Romania ,

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

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus Kūris , Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2016 ,

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 .

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, Kud Å‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90 ‑ 94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139 ‑ 165, 10 January 2012). 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, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania , no. 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 145 ‑ 147 and 149).

8. In the leading case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012, 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.

11. The applicants also complained of other aspects concerning material conditions of detention. In the light of its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine these remaining aspects (see Epistatu v. Romania , no. 29343/10, § 55, 24 September 2013, Bahnă v. Romania , no. 75985/12, § 53, 13 November 2014; Toma Barbu v. Romania , no. 19730/10, § 71, 30 July 2013; Remus Tudor v. Romania , no. 19779/11, § 38, 15/04/2014 ).

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. Some applicants 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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application s is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV . 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, Butiuc and Dumitrof v. Romania, no. 19320/07, 15 July 2014), 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 admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

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

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining issues under Article 3 of the Convention raised by the applicants in respect of the material conditions of detention ;

5. 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 7 April 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Vincent A. D e Gaetano Acting Deputy 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]

32435/13

01/04/2013

Costică MATEI

18/10/1961

Aiud Penitentiary

01/09/2009 to

24/04/2011

1 year(s) and 8 month(s)

Aiud Penitentiary

27/05/2011 to

08/05/2014

3 year(s)

Aiud Penitentiary

11/07/2014 to

01/07/2015

1 year(s)

Currently detained in Gherla Penitentiary

1.19 - 2.5 m²

2.42 - 3.42 m²

2.6 - 3.06 m²

overcrowding

11,400

34092/14

08/09/2014

George IonuÈ› NICOLAE

21/12/1985

Kovacs Andreea

Bucharest

Bucharest General Police Detention Centr e, Bucharest 5th Police Station and Rahova Penitentiary

09/06/2012

pending

3 year( s) and 9 month(s)

1.81 - 2.41 m²

3.85 m²

2.4 m²

Bucharest General Police Detention Centre – overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene

Bucharest 5th Police Section – overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene

Rahova Penitentiary - overcrowding, insufficient access to warm water

8,000

46833/14

11/08/2014

Marian ROTARU

21/08/1958

Dolj Police Inspectorate, Craiova Penitentiary, Pelendava Penitentiary, Târgu Jiu Penitentiary and Drobeta Turnu Severin Penitentiary

27/03/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 11 month(s)

n/a

1.29 - 1.52 m²

2.18 - 3.37 m²

1.24 - 1.79 m²

1.43 - 2.16 m²

Dolj Police Inspectorate – poor conditions of hygiene, lack of a toilet in the cell

Craiova Penitentiary - overcrowding

Pelendava Penitentiary – overcrowding, insufficient sanitary facilities, insufficient access to warm water

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary – overcrowding, insufficient sanitary facilities, lack of an adequate place to serve meals

Drobeta Turnu Severin Penitentiary – overcrowding, insufficient access to warm water

4,700

48459/14

30/07/2014

Alberto Marian STOIAN

01/05/1988

Peter Irina Maria

Bucharest

Bucharest Police Detention Centre No. 1, Rahova Penitentiary and Jilava Penitentiary

21/01/2013

pending

3 year(s) and 1 month(s)

2.07 - 2.89 m²

2.4 m²

1.05 - 2.87 m²

Bucharest Police Detention Centre No. 1 - overcrowding

Rahova Penitentiary - overcrowding

Jilava Penitentiary – overcrowding

6,800

49302/14

12/09/2014

Ilie JILCU

24/07/1958

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary

09/01/2013 to

29/08/2014

1 year(s) and 8 month(s)

1.32 - 1.63 m²

overcrowding, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, insufficient sanitary facilities

4,200

51491/14

31/07/2014

Simona GROSU

11/10/1982

Târgșor Penitentiary

06/02/2014

pending

2 year(s) and 1 month(s)

1.44 - 2.78 m²

overcrowding, limited access to warm water and passive smoking for certain periods of detention

5,000

52446/14

12/09/2014

Marcel Valeriu BOBU

27/03/1971

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary

14/11/2013

pending

2 year(s) and 4 month(s)

1.04 - 2.88 m²

overcrowding, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, insufficient sanitary facilities for certain periods of detention

5,400

53438/14

18/08/2014

Arpad CSUKUR

13/07/1982

MaramureÈ™ Police Inspectorate, Gherla Penitentiary and Baia Mare Penitentiary

04/01/2013

pending

3 year(s) and 2 month(s)

3.81 m²

2.38 - 3.33 m²

1.65 - 2.71 m²

Maramureș Police Inspectorate – overcrowding, lack of adequate lighting and ventilation

Gherla Penitentiary – overcrowding

Baia Mare Penitentiary - overcrowding

6,900

54354/14

12/09/2014

Costin Bogdan HUIDAN

05/03/1985

Timișoara Penitentiary

30/01/2014 to

13/10/2015

1 year(s) and 9 month(s)

2.38 - 3.5 m²

overcrowding, worn-out bunk beds, worn-out mattresses, cells infested with insects

4,400

54542/14

13/08/2014

Dorin DRAGOTOIU

17/10/1972

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary

18/03/2014

pending

2 year(s)

1.37 - 1.93 m²

overcrowding, insufficient natural lighting and ventilation, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, insufficient sanitary facilities, insufficient access to warm water

4,800

54682/14

01/10/2014

Vasile BOZA

23/02/1974

Brăila Penitentiary

31/05/2013

pending

2 year(s) and 9 month(s)

1.23 - 3.55 m²

overcrowding, lack of adequate light and ventilation, insufficient sanitary facilities and access to showers

Brăila District Court ’ s arrest premises on 25/08/2014 - overcrowding (0.25 m² of individual space)

6,200

55491/14

25/08/2014

Mirel Vasile TITILINCU

17/11/1987

Penitentiaries of Colibași and Târgu Jiu

29/04/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 10 month(s)

1.41 - 1.85 m²

1.48 - 2.74 m²

Coliba ş i Penitentiary – overcrowding

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary – overcrowding until 19/01/2015 and lack of adequate light

4,500

56258/14

26/08/2014

Traian Ioan RUS

14/05/1983

Bistrița Penitentiary

24/06/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 8 month(s)

1.30 - 2.48 m²

overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene

4,200

58288/14

17/09/2014

Mircea Răzvan SPIRIDON

16/08/1979

Bistrița Penitentiary

14/02/2014 to

10/02/2015

1 year(s)

Bistrița Penitentiary

24/04/2015 to

29/04/2015

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

1.21 - 2.48 m²

2.17 - 2.48 m²

overcrowding, insufficient sanitary facilities, poor conditions of hygiene

overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene

3,200

59242/14

02/10/2014

Florinel-VictoraÈ™ BREBAN

18/10/1986

Breban Gyongyi -Edina

Ulciug , Sălaj County

Sălaj Police Inspectorate and Satu Mare Penitentiary

23/01/2014

pending

2 year(s) and 1 month(s)

n/a

1.3 - 1.93 m²

Sălaj Police Inspectorate - lack of adequate separation between the cell and the toilet

Satu Mare Penitentiary – overcrowding, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, poor quality of food, small courtyard, poor conditions of hygiene

5,000

60919/14

02/10/2014

Ninel Constantin BÃŽRZÄ‚NEANU

14/08/1980

Craiova Penitentiary

16/04/2014 to

12/11/2014

0 year(s) and 7 month(s)

1.29 - 1.95 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food

3,000

61680/14

22/10/2014

Gigel GHEORGHE

09/11/1991

Galați Penitentiary

07/08/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 7 month(s)

1.6 - 2 m²

overcrowding, insufficient access to warm water

4,100

62661/14

12/09/2014

Valentin BOBU

22/10/1991

Târgu Jiu Penitentiary

14/11/2013

pending

2 year(s) and 4 month(s)

1.04 - 2.65 m²

overcrowding, insufficient number of beds for certain periods of detention, insufficient sanitary facilities, lack of an adequate place to serve meals

5,400

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

Menu

CASE OF MATEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF MATEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI