The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Ruseti 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 25 November 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. Following the death of Mr Trif (application no.\u00a020127\/17), his children informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application introduced by the applicant.<\/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 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. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 20127\/17<\/p>\n 6. On 6 January 2021, after the communication of the case, the representative of the applicant in application no. 20127\/17 informed the Court that the applicant, Mr Trif, had died on 14 November 2020 and that the applicant\u2019s children, Ms Natalia-Diana Bulzan and Mr Lucian-Felician Trif, wanted to pursue the application in their father\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n 7. The representative mentioned that, at the date of his death, the applicant was not married. She also submitted documents issued by a notary office according to which the applicant\u2019s children had accepted the inheritance opened following the death of their father.<\/p>\n 8. This information and documents were communicated to the Government for information. No comments on the matter have been received from them.<\/p>\n 9. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the heirs. Moreover, the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s children have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037\u201142, 12\u00a0January 2016).<\/p>\n 10. Accordingly, the Court decides that Ms Natalia-Diana Bulzan and Mr\u00a0Lucian-Felician Trif have standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 20127\/17 on behalf of late Mr Trif.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 11. 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 12. 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\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\u201141, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 13. In the leading case of Rezmive\u0219 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.<\/p>\n 14. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the arguments raised by the parties, including the Government\u2019s objection related to the non\u2011exhaustion 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\u2011law on the subject (including its findings in the recent case of Polgar v.\u00a0Romania, no. 39412\/19, \u00a7\u00a7 94-97, 20\u00a0July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention, as described in the table appended below, were inadequate.<\/p>\n 15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 16. In applications nos. 10290\/17, 16587\/17, 19395\/17 and 20127\/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 17. 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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 It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. 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, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 20. The Court further 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. Decides that Ms Natalia-Diana Bulzan and Mr Lucian-Felician Trif, the children of the applicant in application no. 20127\/17, have locus standi in the proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, for periods specified in the appended table, admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods indicated in the table appended below;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay to the heirs of the deceased applicant, Mr Trif, jointly, and to each of the remaining 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 16 December 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\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<\/strong>
\nCASE OF RUSETI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 67616\/16 and 19 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 December 2021<\/p>\n
\nJolien Schukking,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n