Last Updated on February 10, 2022 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MIHAI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 31539/16 and 6 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mihai and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,
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 Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
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 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, §§ 122‑41, 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 and the arguments submitted by the parties, including the Government’s objection related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, 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 recent case of Polgar v Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table below, were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In application no. 48278/16 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application no. 48278/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. 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, for the periods specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods specified in the appended table below;
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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
___________
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
Year 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] |
| 1. | 31539/16
06/07/2016 |
Bogdan MIHAI
1979 |
Târgoviște County Police Station; Mărgineni, Găești and Ploiești Prisons; Colibași (Mioveni) Prison Hospital
28/10/2013 to 22/02/2017 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 day(s) |
1.23 – 2.87 m² | overcrowding (except for the periods 05/06 – 12/06/2014; 18/03 – 27/04/2015; 13/11/2015 – 22/02/2017), mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities | 3,000 |
| 2. | 42413/16
10/08/2016 |
Rancu RANCU
1985 |
Mărgineni and Ploiești Prisons; Colibași (Mioveni) and Jilava Prison Hospitals
18/03/2014 to 21/02/2017 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s) |
0.83 – 2.58 m²
|
overcrowding (except for the periods 22/12/2015 – 29/03/2016), insufficient number of sleeping places lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light | 3,000 |
| 3. | 44262/16
14/09/2016 |
Iov-Mihai GANEA
1990 |
Mărgineni Prison
21/10/2011 to 22/03/2012 5 month(s) and 2 day(s) Mărgineni Prison 27/03/2012 to 04/08/2015 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s) Mărgineni Prison 07/08/2015 to 28/09/2016 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
1.38 – 2.99 m²
1.38 – 2.99 m²
1.38 – 2.99 m² |
overcrowding (except for the periods 25/06 – 05/07/2014; 17/07 – 27/07/2015; 23/03 – 24/03/2016; 12/04 – 15/07/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water, lack or inadequate furniture
|
3,000 |
| 4. | 47007/16
01/08/2016 |
Alexandru-Ionuț BOBOCICĂ
1985 |
Brăila Prison
13/07/2013 to 01/03/2016 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s) |
1.35 – 1.76 m² | overcrowding, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen | 3,000 |
| 5. | 48278/16
02/09/2016 |
Ionuţ SIMIONESCU
1992 |
Rahova, Jilava and Găești Prisons
29/08/2014 to 21/12/2016 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
1.29 – 2.5 m² | overcrowding (except for the periods 10/05 – 30/09/2015 and 24/03 – 21/12/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, bunk beds, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities | 3,000 |
| 6. | 48534/16
21/03/2017 |
Alexandru-Gabriel ONILĂ
1986 |
Dolj County Police Station, Găești, Craiova and Craiova Pelendava Prisons
22/12/2014 to 30/08/2017 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 9 day(s) |
1.30 – 2.64 m² | overcrowding (except for the periods 25/03 -15/04/2015 and 14/02 – 12/06/2017), lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet | 3,000 |
| 7. | 67621/16
21/12/2016 |
Alexandru PERSU
1980 |
Bucharest Police detention facility no. 12, Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Craiova, Mărgineni, Craiova – Pelendava, Găești, Târgu-Jiu, Jilava and Rahova Prisons
11/12/2012 to 20/12/2016 4 year(s) and 10 day(s) |
1.13 – 2.50 m²
|
overcrowding (except for the periods 07/10 – 08/10/2015 and 29/04 – 13/06/2016),
lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light |
3,000 |
Leave a Reply