The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Cerbeanu v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n 1. PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application 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 15 December 2014.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Mr Mateu\u021b, lawyer practising in Cluj\u2011Napoca.<\/p>\n 3. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n 2. THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n 3. THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 7. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant\u2019s 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\u00a0122-41, and Ananyev and<\/p>\n Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Rezmive\u0219 and Others v. Romania, nos.\u00a061467\/12 and 3\u00a0others, 25\u00a0April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9. 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\u2011law on the subject (including its findings in the case of Polgar v.\u00a0Romania, no.\u00a039412\/19, \u00a7\u00a7 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, were inadequate.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 2. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL\u2011ESTABLISHED CASE\u2011LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well\u2011established case\u2011law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground (including by having regard to Brudan v.\u00a0Romania, no.\u00a075717\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 86-89, 10 April 2018). Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756\/06 and 2\u00a0others, 26\u00a0November 2013.<\/p>\n 3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. 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 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Rezmive\u0219 and Others and Vlad and Others, both cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the period specified in the appended table below;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well\u2011established case\u2011law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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\u2011mentioned 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 30 March 2023, 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 \u00a0Tim Eicke ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF CERBEANU v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 77590\/14)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 March 2023<\/p>\n
\nTim Eicke, President,
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n