FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CERBEANU v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 77590/14)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cerbeanu v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 December 2014.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr Mateuț, lawyer practising in Cluj‑Napoca.
3. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He 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 applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
8. 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.
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 (including its findings in the case of Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL‑ESTABLISHED CASE‑LAW11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case‑law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground (including by having regard to Brudan v. Romania, no. 75717/14, §§ 86-89, 10 April 2018). Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others and Vlad and Others, both cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the period specified in the appended table below;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well‑established case‑law of the Court (see appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‑established case‑law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
77590/14
15/12/2014
Gheorghe CERBEANU
1955
Mateuț Gheorghiță
Cluj-Napoca
Târgu-Jiu Prison
28/04/2014 to
05/11/2015
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1.94 - 2.98 m²
overcrowding (save for 28-29/04/2014), bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/ rodents, poor quality of food, insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings – the proceedings started on 29/11/2007 and ended on 10/09/2014, amounting to a total length of 6 years, 8 months and 11 days for two levels of jurisdiction (domestic file no. 1755/1/2013)
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.