FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MIHALI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 625/15 and 8 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mihali 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 23 November 2017,
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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 principally 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 pilot 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, 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant in application no. 42700/15 complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the refusal of his request for conjugal visits during pre-trial detention from 31 May 2013 to 24 December 2013. As observed by the Government, this complaint was raised on 23 November 2015 and is thus inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the six‑month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, it must be declared inadmissible.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. The applicants in applications nos. 625/15, 7523/15 and 34015/15 also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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. 625/15, 7523/15, 34015/15 and 42700/15 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 14 December 2017, 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]
625/15
29/04/2015
Cristian Mihali
21/06/1972
Maramureș Police Inspectorate
25/06/2013 to
27/06/2013
3 day(s)
Baia Mare Penitentiary
28/06/2013 to
27/02/2015
1 year(s) and 8 month(s)
Baia Mare Penitentiary
08/03/2016
pending
More than 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 day(s)
0.7-2.8 m²
0.7-2.8 m²
poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light
overcrowding
overcrowding
3,000
2340/15
12/03/2015
Adrian-Ionel Drăghici
20/05/1988
Timișoara Penitentiary
21/08/2014 to
29/02/2016
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1.5-2.9 m²
overcrowding, 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
3,000
5789/15
20/01/2015
Vasile Ardeleanu
04/05/1986
Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary
21/08/2014 to
17/03/2015
6 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1.5-2.2 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light
1,000
7523/15
04/03/2015
Gheorghița Brănișteanu
31/01/1958
Craiova Penitentiary
14/08/2008
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)
Târgșor Nou Penitentiary
09/03/2009 to
04/12/2015
6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s)
1.1-2.7 m²
1.5-2.7 m²
overcrowding
overcrowding (save for the periods of 15/09/2010 – 02/12/2010 and 06/12/2010 – 21/02/2013), inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
5,000
8615/15
11/03/2015
Adrian Teodor Codrea
28/07/1985
Gherla Penitentiary
10/06/2014 to
18/09/2015
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1.7-2.8 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
3,000
23679/15
21/09/2015
Mihai Ivașcu
09/01/1975
Miercurea-Ciuc Penitentiary
06/02/2014
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1.4-1.9 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light
3,000
29127/15
10/06/2015
Marian-Marcel Drăguţ
21/07/1981
Zlate Laura
Galați
Galați Penitentiary
09/02/2015 to
09/08/2016
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1.6-2 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
3,000
34015/15
28/09/2015
Ioan-Marcel Achim
22/10/1961
Aiud Penitentiary
30/10/2014 to
24/02/2015
3 month(s) and 26 day(s)
Târgu Mureș Penitentiary
25/02/2015 to
11/10/2017
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 17 day(s)
1.6-2.6 m²
1.8-2.2 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air
Overcrowding (save for the periods of 25/02/2015 – 17/11/2015 and 27/11/2015 – 28/12/2015), poor quality of food, lack of (regular) physical exercise in fresh air
3,000
42700/15
15/09/2015
Florinel Pisle
28/03/1978
Sălaj Police Inspectorate
31/05/2013 to
02/07/2013
1 month(s) and 3 day(s)
Oradea Penitentiary
02/07/2013 to
19/07/2016
3 year(s) and 18 day(s)
Baia Mare Penitentiary
20/01/2014 to
14/03/2014
1 month(s) and 23 day(s)
2.4 m²
2.08-2.5 m²
1.6 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of food
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy