European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF ŞTEFĂNESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 11408/16and 11 others - see appended list )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

 

20 September 2018

 

 

 

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

In the case of Ştefănescu 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 30 August 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. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16and 19944/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit rule, arguing that the applicants' complaint regarding their initial detention was lodged out of time.

8. The Court observes that in application no. 13684/16the applicant's complaint regarding his initial detention from 22 December 2010 to 14 September 2012, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

9. The Court further observes that in application no. 19026/16the applicant's complaint regarding his initial detention from 2 October 2007 to 22 November 2007, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 13 August 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

10. Furthermore, the Court notes that in application no. 19942/16the applicant's complaint regarding his initial detention from 22 March 2012 to 13 February 2014, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 23 June 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

11. Lastly, the Court notes that in application no. 19944/16the applicant's complaint regarding his initial detention from 4 July 2011 to 3 August 2012, which ceased on the latter date by his transfer to another detention facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 13 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

12. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government's preliminary objection and finds that the above-mentioned parts of applications nos. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16and 19944/16were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

13. 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. 42525/07and 60800/08, §§ 149-159, 10 January 2012).

14. In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12and 3 others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

15. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government's objection concerning the continuous situation of the applicants' condition of detention in some of the cases, 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.

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

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17. 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."

18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

19. 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. 13684/16, 19026/16, 19942/16and 19944/16concerning the applicants' detention periods which ended on 14 September 2012, 22 November 2007, 13 February 2014 and 3 August 2012, respectively, 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 20 September 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.