FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MÂZGĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 5489/16 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 May 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mâzgă and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2019,
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. Notice of the applications was given 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, 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 applications. 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 applications 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 9 May 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
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’s name
Date of birth
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]
5489/16
01/04/2016
Ioan Mâzgă
23/06/1981
Colibași and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons
06/09/2015 to
04/01/2018
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)
1.49-2.92 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
3,000
9209/16
28/03/2016
Ioan Tofan
30/08/1980
Iași Prison
24/04/2015 to
18/05/2016
1 year(s) and 25 day(s)
1.28 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water
3,000
9338/16
08/02/2016
Constantin Ninel Potîrcă
20/11/1967
Craiova Prison
22/09/2014 to
11/09/2018
3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21 day(s)
1.19-1.95 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
3,000
9896/16
11/03/2016
Cornel Ioan-Vereș
12/10/1942
Maramureș County Police Inspectorate, Baia Mare Prison, Aiud Prison, Gherla Prison, and Rahova Prison
14/01/2013
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)
1.96-2.92 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature
5,000
11994/16
25/03/2016
Nicolae Aenculese
06/12/1983
Iași Prison
26/06/2013 to 24/05/2016
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1.28-1.99 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture
3,000
14116/16
29/03/2016
Bogdan-Florin Lăzărescu
12/10/1989
Constanța County Police Inspectorate, Poarta Albă Prison, Rahova Prison, and Gherla Prison
22/11/2010 to 11/04/2016
5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 21 day(s)
1.84-2.82 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
5,000
16863/16
18/04/2016
Toma-Teodor Neacşu
26/08/1992
Represented by Irina Maria Peter,
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Arrest Centre (10th facility)
05/05/2015 to 04/08/2015
3 month(s)
Rahova Prison
04/08/2015
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)
2.44-2.45 m²
poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
18963/16
10/05/2016
Alexandru Mădălin Miroiu
05/09/1993
Dolj County Police Inspectorate and Craiova Prison
24/08/2014 to 01/08/2017
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1.19-2.08 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture
3,000
19177/16
03/05/2016
Cosmin Lăzăroiu
11/05/1979
Craiova Prison
16/06/2014 to 14/07/2016
2 year(s) and 29 day(s)
1.12-2.92 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture
3,000
19782/16
04/05/2016
Dorel Lingurar
24/05/1973
Aiud Prison
25/07/2013 to 25/01/2018
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food
3,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy