FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF CLO\u015eC\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
\n(Application nos. 54609\/15 and 2 others – see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n8 October 2020<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Clo\u015fc\u0103 and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President, Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2020,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 7. In application no. 54609\/15, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicant\u2019s loss of victim status for his detention as of 24 July 2012 since they claimed that he was afforded adequate redress based on Law no.\u00a0169\/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254\/2013 on the execution of sentences for this part of his detention.<\/p>\n 8. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of D\u00eerjan and\u00a0\u015etefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos.\u00a014224\/15 and 50977\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a023\u201133, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicant in application no.\u00a054609\/15. Indeed, the applicant was afforded adequate redress (384 days in compensation) for the period of detention from 24 July 2012 to 28 December 2017, the date of his release from prison.<\/p>\n 9. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s objection and finds that this part of application no. 54609\/15 is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10. The Government further contested the factual information provided by the applicants concerning facilities and periods of their detention. They submitted, in particular, that the applicant in application no. 54609\/15 had not been detained in Br\u0103ila Prison between 30 January and 24 February 2012 (25 days), as he alleged, but that he had actually been in Timi\u0219oara Prison. The applicant did not contest that information. In the absence of any complaints on his part about the conditions of detention in the latter facility, the period at issue (30 January to 24 February 2012) is, therefore, outside the scope of the Court\u2019s examination.<\/p>\n 11. Also, in application no. 49735\/16, the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in different facilities during a period of several years. From the Government\u2019s submissions it follows that the applicant had not been detained in Satu Mare Prison between 14 and 22\u00a0January 2016 (8 days), as he alleged, but that he had actually been in Dej Prison Hospital. The applicant did not contest that information. In the absence of any complaints on his part about the conditions of detention in the latter facility, the period at issue (14 to 22 January\u00a02016) is, therefore, outside the scope of the Court\u2019s examination.<\/p>\n 12. Lastly, in application no. 54650\/16, the Government submitted, that the applicant had not been detained in Timi\u0219oara Prison between 18\u00a0December 2015 and 7 January\u00a02016 (20 days), as the applicant alleged, but that he had actually been in Dej Prison Hospital. The applicant did not contest that information. In the absence of any complaints on his part about the conditions of detention in the latter facility, the period at issue (18\u00a0December 2015 to 7 January\u00a02016) is, therefore, outside the scope of the Court\u2019s examination.<\/p>\n 13. The Court reiterates that a period of detention should be regarded as a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d if the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions. Short periods of absence during which the applicant was taken out of the facility for interviews or other procedural acts would have no incidence on the continuous nature of the detention. However, the applicant\u2019s release or transfer to a different type of detention regimen, either within or outside the facility, would put an end to the \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d (Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7 78, 10 January 2012). In the absence of a description whatsoever of the conditions of detention while in Timi\u0219oara Prison (application no. 54609\/15) or in Dej Prison Hospital (applications nos. 49735\/16 and 54650\/16), the Court cannot conclude that the applicants were detained in identical or substantially similar conditions. Thus, it finds that the periods mentioned above, notwithstanding their short duration, interrupted the continuous situation of the applicants\u2019 detention (see Abdilla v. Malta, no.\u00a036199\/15, \u00a7\u00a028, 17 July 2018). Given this interruption, and taking into account the dates on which the applications were lodged with the Court, the applicants complaints about the conditions of their detention before 30 January 2012 (application no. 54609\/15), 14\u00a0January 2016 (application no. 49735\/16) and 18 December 2015 (application no.\u00a054650\/16) respectively, are belated (see Abdilla, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a027-29, and Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018496\/16 and\u00a02\u00a0others, \u00a7 31, 25\u00a0July 2017).<\/p>\n 14. Turning to the remaining parts of the applicants\u2019 detention, the Court notes that they were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants\u2019 detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122\u00a0\u2011141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u2011159).<\/p>\n 15. In the leading case of Rezmive\u0219 and Others v. Romania, nos.\u00a061467\/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 16. 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\u2019 conditions of detention were inadequate.<\/p>\n 17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 18. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Rezmive\u0219 and Others v. Romania, nos.\u00a061467\/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 20. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Liv Tigerstedt \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m<\/p>\n Acting Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n (inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n
\nGeorges Ravarani,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n