FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CIOBOTARU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 23572/14 and 3 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 Ciobotaru 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. 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).
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, 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. 41700/15, 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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 applications admissible;
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 TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
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
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
23572/14
28/04/2014
Vasilică Ciobotaru
04/06/1980
Focșani Penitentiary
15/02/2013 to 05/09/2014
1 year and 6 months and 22 days
1.43 m²
Overcrowding, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
3,000
73773/14
13/11/2014
Marius Galan
18/09/1972
Alina Gherman
Iași
Iași Penitentiary and Botoșani Penitentiary
28/10/2011 – pending
More than 6 years and
5 months and 17 days
1.26-2.2 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature
5,000
22053/15
25/05/2015
Marian Dragotă
18/11/1958
Rahova Penitentiary
10/09/2014 to 21/01/2016
1 year and 4 months and 12 days
1.93-2.4 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
3,000
41700/15
16/10/2015
Vasile-Adrian Panaite
14/06/1974
Timișoara Arrest Centre
17/01/2009 to 15/03/2009
1 month and 27 days
Penitentiaries of Timișoara, Rahova and Arad
15/03/2009 to 14/10/2015
6 years and 7 months
2 - 2.7 m²
inadequate sanitary facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
Overcrowding (save for the periods between 05/11/2010-14/05/2012 and 25/05/2012-09/08/2012 while in Arad Penitentiary), bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy