FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ORGHIDAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 62744/15 and 11 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Orghidan 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 16 May 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. In applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period were lodged out of time.
8. The Court observes that in application no. 15616/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Mărgineni Prison, namely from 9 July 2009 until 15 March 2012, preceding a period of detention of more than seven months in respect of which the applicant did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 18 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the relevant period.
9. The Court further observes that in application no. 43703/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Brăila and Galați Prisons, which ceased on 13 November 2014 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 21 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.
10. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objections and finds that these parts of applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objections concerning the continuous situation of the applicants’ conditions 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.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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 applications nos. 15616/16 and 43703/16 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 6 June 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
Representative’s 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]
62744/15
07/05/2016
Marian Orghidan
20/03/1986
Timișoara Prison
24/12/2015 to 09/06/2016
5 months and 17 days
2.6 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 24/12/2015-14/01/2016), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
1,000
11623/16
14/04/2016
Ionel-Viorel Cojocaru
03/10/1993
Craiova Prison
18/07/2014 to 28/07/2016
2 years and 11 days
1.1-1.7 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 31/08-01/09/2014), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
15616/16
18/04/2016
Cristian Buga
10/01/1968
Miercurea Ciuc, Ploiești, Ploiești - Movila Vulpii External and Găești Prisons
01/11/2012 to 28/09/2016
3 years and 10 months
and 28 days
1.2-2.4 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 24/12/2015-29/09/2016), no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of toiletries, bunk beds
3,000
19605/16
03/06/2016
Constantin Stărpu
05/03/1981
Neamț County Police Inspectorate, Jilava Hospital Prison, Bacău and Iași Prisons
29/08/2011 to 11/10/2016
5 years and 1 month and
13 days
2.1 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 21/09-06/11/2012), lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet
5,000
24464/16
24/05/2016
Cătălin Buzică
20/12/1984
Irina Maria
Peter
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Arrest Facilities, Rahova, Jilava and Găești Prisons
19/03/2012 to 08/12/2015
3 years and 8 months and
20 days
1.3 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 20/01-08/12/2015), lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
3,000
30850/16
17/06/2016
Dănuț Dumitru
10/01/1978
Galați Prison
12/12/2008 to 08/11/2018
9 years and 10 months and
28 days
1.2-2.5 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods of 31/03-10/07/2015, 21/07-12/08/2015, 08/09-06/10/2015, 09/10-27/11/2015, 08-24/12/2015, 29/12/2015-22/01/2016, 05-26/02/2016, 04/03-04/05/2016, 10-31/05/2016, 14-23/06/2016, 26/06-19/08/2016, 26/08/2016-07/02/2017), lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to running water
5,000
32368/16
04/07/2016
Săndel
Stoica-Chirica
08/04/1989
Galați Prison
09/04/2010 to 11/07/2016
6 years and 3 months and
3 days
2 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light
5,000
34677/16
11/08/2016
Gheorghiţă Tofan
26/02/1981
Ionela Mărgărit
Bucharest
Bucharest Police Inspectorate nos. 1 and 10, Rahova, Jilava and Brăila Prisons
13/10/2014 – pending
More than 4 years and
5 months and 29 days
1.6-2.7 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods of 04/03-02/08/2015, 09-10/11/2015, 12/01/2016-onwards), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food
3,000
37326/16
15/07/2016
Vasile-Ioan
Dihoiu-Bloj
09/04/1980
Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc and Iași Prisons
09/04/2013 – pending
More than 6 years and 1 day
1.2-1.9 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, small courtyard
5,000
38551/16
21/07/2016
Constantin-Adrian Vasile
15/10/1984
Slobozia Prison
11/02/2016 – pending
More than 3 years and
1 month and 30 days
1.9-2 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 31/01-02/02/2017), poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
43703/16
21/07/2016
Dănuţ-Maricel Mustaţă
03/09/1980
Ionela Mărgărit
Bucharest
Galați and Brăila Prisons
12/06/2015 – pending
More than 3 years and
9 months and 29 days
1.2-1.8 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, small courtyard, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
53417/16
22/09/2016
Marian Botezatu
18/07/1982
Galați Prison
15/06/2007 – pending
More than 11 years and
9 months and 28 days
1.5 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
5,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy