Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF OPREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application s no s . 54966/09, 57682/10, 20499/11, 41587/11, 27583/12, 75692/12, 76944/12, 77474/12, 9985/13, 16490/13, 29530/13, 37810/13, 40759/13, 55842/13, 56837/13, 62797/13, 64858/13, 65996/13,

66101/13 and 15822/14 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 June 2015

This judgment is final . It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Oprea and Others v. Romania ,

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

Luis López Guerra, President , Johannes Silvis, Valeriu Griţco , judges ,

and Hasan Bakırcı , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2015,

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

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

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

4 . The applicants complained of inadequate conditions of detention. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other 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, 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 extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “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, §§ 36 ‑ 40, 7 April 2005).

8 . In the leading case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§ 116-129, 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 (see appended table for details).

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

11 . In applications nos. 57682/10, 37810/13, 56837/13, and 62797/13, the applicants also complained of other aspects concerning material conditions of detention or transport. 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; and Bujorean v. Romania , no. 13054/12, § 32, 10 June 2014) .

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS RAISED UNDER WELL ‑ ESTABLISHED CASE ‑ LAW

12 . The applicant in case no. 41587/11 also submitted a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of well-established Convention case-law (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §§ 131-133 and 161, 26 November 2013).

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13 . Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14 . The Court has carefully 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 its 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.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15 . 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.”

16 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law ( Iacov Stanciu , cited above, §§ 201-203 ), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17 . 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 and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3. Holds that these applications 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 raised under Article 3 of the Convention in applications nos. 57682/10 and 56837/13 in respect of the material conditions of detention and in applications nos. 37810/13 and 62797/13 in respect of the material conditions of transport;

5. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) ;

6. 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 amount indicated in the appended table 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 18 June 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar President

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

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m. per inmate

Specific grievances

Other complaints under

well-established case-law

Amount per applicant

(in euros)

54966/09

09/10/2009

Radu George OPREA

07/12/1974

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

12/10/2009 to

19/02/2010

0 year(s) and 5 month(s)

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

24/06/2010

pending

4 year(s) and 11 month(s)

2,3 – 2,7 m²

Overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene.

non-pecuniary damage

10,800

57682/10

06/09/2010

Iacob SCHEIN

14/07/1973

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

11/03/2008 to

31/01/2011

2 year(s) and 11 month(s)

Craiova Penitentiary

03/02/2011 to

21/02/2011

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Craiova Penitentiary

02/05/2011 to

05/05/2011

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

22/08/2011 to

25/08/2011

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

25/07/2013

pending

1 year(s) and 10 month(s)

2,24 – 2,34 m²

2,91 m²

2,24 – 2,34 m²

Overcrowding.

non-pecuniary damage

10,200

20499/11

25/03/2011

Marcel VARGA

13/06/1977

Oradea Penitentiary

22/07/2010 to

05/12/2012

2 year(s) and 5 month(s)

1,59 – 2,59 m²

Overcrowding.

non-pecuniary damage

5,600

41587/11

23/06/2011

Andrei MOLDOVAN

12/10/1952

Penitentiaries of Oradea and Satu Mare

27/01/2011 to

30/10/2012

1 year(s) and 10 month(s)

n/a

Oradea Penitentiary – limited access to showers.

Satu Mare Penitentiary – lack of adequate heating, poor quality of food, insufficient out-of-cell time, inadequate place for walking outside the cell, limited access to showers .

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings

non-pecuniary damage

5,900

costs and expenses

300

27583/12

23/04/2012

Petru NICA

29/10/1954

Timi ÅŸ oara Penitentiary

15/12/2011

pending

3 year(s) and 5 month(s)

1,92 – 2,34 m²

Overcrowding, cells infested with bedbugs and cockroaches, lack of sufficient space to serve meals and to store goods.

non-pecuniary damage

7,400

75692/12

20/11/2012

Mihail BOLDEA

09/03/1976

Galaţ i Police Detention Centre

27/03/2012 to

26/10/2012

0 year(s) and 7 month(s)

Galaţ i Penitentiary

31/10/2012 to

23/11/2013

1 year(s) and 1 month(s)

2,1 – 3,15 m²

n/a

Overcrowding for certain periods of detention (27/03/2012-19/04/2012), passive smoking, insufficient access to the courtyard for walking outside of the cell, sanitary facilities inadequately separated from the rest of the cell, lack of adequate ventilation, natural light and artificial light, poor conditions of hygiene.

Limited access to warm water for showers.

non-pecuniary damage

4,200

76944/12

16/11/2012

Ștefan GHIUR

01/02/1958

Gala ţ i Penitentiary

20/04/2012 to

31/07/2013

1 year(s) and 4 month(s)

1,35 – 2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of adequate space and furniture to store goods and food, limited schedule for running water.

non-pecuniary damage

3,600

77474/12

15/11/2012

Nicolae MÃŽRÅ¢AN

23/02/1962

Ploie ÅŸ ti Penitentiary

15/07/2010 to

19/04/2013

2 year(s) and 10 month(s)

1,34 – 2,47 m²

Overcrowding, lack of adequate places to store personal objects and food, poor conditions of hygiene, poor quality of food.

non-pecuniary damage

6,300

costs and expenses

1,500

(the sum for cost and expenses to be paid directly to the applicants ’ representatives, Stoica & Asocia ții)

9985/13

03/01/2013

Augustin Viorel ŢIGAN

16/08/1958

Oradea Penitentiary

19/11/2004 to

14/03/2013

8 year(s) and 4 month(s)

1,66 – 2,59 m²

Overcrowding, inadequate toilet facilities, lack of a ventilation system in the toilet, lack of adequate lighting and ventilation, lack of adequate space to store personal effects and food, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, to dry clothes, poor quality of food, insufficient access to showers.

non-pecuniary damage

16,200

16490/13

25/02/2013

Ion VLÄ‚ DIL Ä‚

15/12/1960

Penitentiaries of Craiova, Jilava and Drobeta Turnu Severin

04/03/2004

pending

11 year(s) and 3 month(s)

1 , 6 – 2,11 m²

n/a

1,93 – 2,73 m²

Craiova Penitentiary – overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of adequate heating, poor conditions of hygiene.

Jilava Penitentiary – poor conditions of hygiene, poor quality of food, lack of adequate heating.

Drobeta Turnu Severin Penitentiary – overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of adequate heating, poor conditions of hygiene.

non-pecuniary damage

21,500

29530/13

18/04/2013

Sandu ILIE

14/02/1964

Codlea Penitentiary

30/07/2012

pending

2 year(s) and 9 month(s)

1,62 – 2,55 m²

Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of hygienic products for certain periods of detention, lack of an adequate space to serve meals, cell infested with bedbugs, limited access to warm water, lack of adequate heating during winter, lack of adequate sanitary facilities for his health, worn-out mattresses, small courtyard for walking outside the cell.

non-pecuniary damage

6,300

37810/13

03/06/2013

Alexandru COLIPCÄ‚

18/04/1989

Bacă u Penitentiary

23/11/2011 to

21/12/2011

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Vaslui Penitentiary

21/12/2011 to

09/07/2014

2 year(s) and 7 month(s)

1,68 – 2,33 m²

1,87 – 2,45 m²

Overcrowding, worn-out mattresses infested with bedbugs, insufficient sanitary facilities, poor quality of food.

Overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene, worn-out mattresses, poor quality of food, insufficient hygienic products, insufficient access to water.

non-pecuniary damage

6,000

40759/13

09/05/2013

Ion MOROCA

19/10/1961

FocÅŸ ani Penitentiary

28/02/2012

pending

3 year(s) and 3 month(s)

1,40 – 2,09 m²

Overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene.

non-pecuniary damage

7,100

55842/13

27/07/2013

Ionel MOISII

01/02/1971

Ia ş i Police Department ’ s Arrest

12/02/2013 to

12/03/2013

0 year(s) and 2 month(s)

n/a

Lack of adequate sanitary facilities in the cell, lack of access to drinking water, limited access to a shared bathroom during the day.

non-pecuniary damage

3,000

56837/13

02/09/2013

Ovidiu CHIRIAC

17/11/1982

Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary

07/02/2012

pending

3 year(s) and 3 month(s)

1,47 – 2,4 m²

Overcrowding.

non-pecuniary damage

7,100

62797/13

27/09/2013

Crăciun Mircea POP

25/12/1970

Satu Mare Penitentiary

03/10/2013 to

14/11/2013

0 year(s) and 2 month(s)

Aiud Penitentiary

14/11/2013 to

18/11/2013

0 year(s) and 1 month(s)

2,35 m²

2,13 m²

Overcrowding, cell infested with insects, lack of adequate ventilation and lighting, insufficient toilet facilities for the number of detainees, small courtyard for walking outside the cell, insufficient access to showers, poor quality of food, unsecured bed bunks.

Overcrowding, lack of adequate ventilation and lighting, passive smoking.

non-pecuniary damage

3,000

64858/13

08/10/2013

Anton GHERASE

27/10/1969

Jilava , Rahova and Giurgiu Penitentiaries and Prison Hospitals of Jilava and Rahova

30/03/2000

pending

15 year(s) and 2 month(s)

2,94 – 3,35 m²

n/a

Jilava , Rahova and Giurgiu Penitentiaries – overcrowding (only for Giurgiu Penitentiary - 2 ,94 - 3,35 m² individual space), lack of adequate lighting, inadequate sanitary installations, poor conditions of hygiene, poor quality of food.

Jilava and Rahova Prison Hospitals – limited access to warm water.

non-pecuniary damage

20,000

costs and expenses

650

65996/13

10/10/2013

Cătălin Bogdan RUSU

19/09/1981

Bac ă u Police Inspectorate

13/05/2011 to

06/10/2011

0 year(s) and 5 month(s)

Bac ă u Penitentiary

06/10/2011 to

22/10/2013

2 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Bac ă u Penitentiary

14/01/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 4 month(s)

1,89 – 2,24 m²

Overcrowding, poor hygienic conditions in the cell and in the toilet facilities.

non-pecuniary damage

8,100

66101/13

14/10/2013

Petrică TOMESCU

26/03/1972

Slobozia Penitentiary

30/08/2012 to

14/11/2013

1 year(s) and 3 month(s)

Tulcea Penitentiary

14/11/2013 to

12/05/2014

0 year(s) and 6 month(s)

1,62 m²

2,11 m²

Overcrowding, lack of adequate ventilation during summer, small courtyards for walking outside the cell, poor quality of food, lack of an adequate place to store food and to serve meals.

Overcrowding, insufficient access to warm water.

non-pecuniary damage

4,400

15822/14

13/03/2014

Nicolae Florin NIMIGAN

18/04/1992

Aiud Penitentiary

19/04/2013

pending

2 year(s) and 1 month(s)

2,36 – 2,76 m²

Overcrowding, lack of a shower in some of the cell ’ s sanitary facilities, insufficient hygiene products provided each month by the penitentiary authorities, cells infested with insects, poor quality of food.

non-pecuniary damage

5,000

Menu

CASE OF OPREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF OPREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI