Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DRÄ‚GUNÄ‚ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application s no s . 864/13 , 17392/13, 22165/13, 47938/13, 52867/13 and 54100/13 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 May 2015

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

In the case of Drăgună and O thers 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 23 April 2015 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in six 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 about ina dequate conditions of detention.

T HE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them in a single judgment .

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6 . The applicants complained about inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows :

“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 in dicated 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; Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-165, 10 January 2012); it recalls 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; it 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 has 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.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11 . Lastly, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

12 . 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 matter s complained of are within its competence, the se complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

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

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 ( Iacov Stanciu , cited above, §§ 201 - 203 ), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums 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 inadequate conditions of the applicants ’ detention set out in the appended table admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3 . Holds that there has been a violation 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 appli cable 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.

D one in English, and notified in writing on 21 May 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

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

(in euros per applicant )

1.

864/13

13/12/2012

ROBERT MIHAI DRÄ‚GUNÄ‚

23/05/1977

Mă rgineni Penitentiary

28/06/2012 to

11/09/2013

(currently detained in Ploie ÅŸ ti Penitentiary)

1 year, 2 months, 13 days

0,42 -2,21 m 2

Overcrowding, insufficient access to cold and warm water, insufficient access to shower, inadequate sanitary facilities, cell infested with bedbugs and lice

3,450

2 .

17392/13

26/02/2013

NICULAE NEAC Åž U

6/03/1968

Jilava

Penitentiary

5/01/2005 to

12/06/2006

Poarta Albă

Penitentiary

12/06/2006 to

24 July 2006

Rahova

Penitentiary

24/07/2006 to

8/04/2009

Giurgiu Penitentiary

8/04/2009 to

12/12/2011

Jilava Penitentiary

12/12/2011 to

present

10 years, 2 months, 26 days

N/A

0,96 -1,25 m²

N/A

1,57- 1,65 m²

C ell s infested with rats , bedbugs and lice, inadequate toilet facilities, insufficient access to water, inadequate ventilation

Overcrowding, cell infested with insects , noxae from the animal farm

I nadequate ventilation , cells infested with bedbugs and lice

Cells infested with bedbugs and lice , noxae from the rubbish dump situated in the front of the cell ’ s window, lack of heating, lack of running water

Overcrowding, insufficient access to shower

19,650

3 .

22 165/13

25/03/2013

VALERIAN NICA ( SFRLOAGĂ )

08/10/1958

Ploie ÅŸ ti

Penitentiary

17/02/2012 to

present

3 years, 1 month, 14 days

1,33-2,25 m 2

Overcrowding, inadequate sanitary facilities, worn out mattresses, insufficient access to cold water, insufficient access to shower, poor quality of food

5,000

4 .

47 938/13

19/07/2013

COSTEL GHIMI Åž I

14/09/1960

Târgu -Jiu Penitentiary

24/01/2013 to

present

2 years, 2 months, 7 days

1,10 -

1,28 m 2

Overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, small courtyard for walking outside the cell, lack of hygienic conditions, insufficient access to warm water, cell infested with lice and bugs

5,250

5 .

52 867/13

5/08/2013

SORIN C ÃŽ RSTEA

19/02/1972

Codlea

Penitentiary

25/04/2013 to

present

1 year, 11 months, 6 days

1,66 – 3,19 m 2

Overcrowding

4,800

6 .

54 100/13

19/08/2013

MIHAI

IANCÄ‚ U

08/10/1990

Oradea

Penitentiary

19/03/2013 to

4/04/2013

Gherla

Penitentiary

4/04/2013 to

22/04/2013

Bistriţ a

Penitentiary

22/04/2013 to

14/05/2013

Satu-Mare Penitentiary

14/05/2013 to

present

2 years, 12 days

2,07 m 2

2,09 – 3,88 m²

1,22 m²

1,30 – 1,56 m²

Overcrowding, cell infested with lice and bugs, poor quality of food

Overcrowding , cell infested with lice and bugs, poor quality of food , lack of an adequate space to walk outside the cell, insufficient access to warm water

4,950

Menu

CASE OF DRĂGUNĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF DRĂGUNĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI