FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF BIBAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
\n(Applications nos. 39129\/16 and 5 others \u2013see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 March 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Biban and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Armen Harutyunyan, President, Having deliberated in private on 18 February 2021,<\/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. In some applications, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/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. THE APPLICANT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT PART OF APPLICATION No. 63373\/16<\/p>\n 6. By letter received on 5 March 2020, the applicant in application no.\u00a063373\/16 informed the Court that he had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 169\/2017 for the period of his detention from 16 May 2016 to 23 December 2019. He therefore asked the Court to strike out this part of his application.<\/p>\n 7. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of his application and it should thus be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1\u00a0(a) of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 8. The applicants complained principally 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 9. In all applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants\u2019 loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no.\u00a0169\/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254\/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention.<\/p>\n 10. 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\u00a0April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (see the appended table).<\/p>\n 11. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention, except for application no.\u00a063373\/16, in which this part of the application is being struck out on the applicant\u2019s request (see paragraphs 6-7 above).<\/p>\n 12. Turning to the periods of the applicants\u2019 detention as specified in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants 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\u0107v.\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\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u2011159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 13. 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 14. 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 15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 16. In application nos. 39129\/16, 52020\/16, 58519\/16 and 61831\/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including, in some of them, related to the conditions of their detention during periods preceding the start date specified in the appended table.<\/p>\n 17. The Court has examined these 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 Article 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.<\/p>\n 18. It follows that this part of application nos. 39129\/16, 52020\/16, 58519\/16 and 61831\/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 19. 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 20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Rezmive\u0219 and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467\/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 21. 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 specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints 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 11 March 2021, 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Armen Harutyunyan ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\nJolien Schukking,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n