FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ANGHEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 5192/16 and 10 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

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

In the case of Anghel and Others 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 24 May 2018,

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 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.  In applications nos. 24073/16 and 37189/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention were lodged out of time.

8.  The Court observes that in application no. 24073/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibaşi Prison, which ceased on 28 November 2012 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on
6 June 2016, that is, more than six months after his transfer.

9.  The Court further observes that in application no. 37189/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Rahova Prison and Giurgiu Prison, which ceased on 29 May 2015 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 16 June 2016, that is, more than six months after his transfer.

10.  Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications were lodged outside the six-month
time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

11.  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, Muršić 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 Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).

12.  In the leading case of Rezmiveș 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.

13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the application of the six-month rule to the continuous situation of the applicant’s conditions of detention in case no. 35627/16, 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.

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

III.  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 (see, in particular, Rezmiveș 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.

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, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 24073/16 and 37189/16 inadmissible;

3.  Holds that these applications 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 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Liv Tigerstedt Vincent A. De Gaetano

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

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