The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Simion and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/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 THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. 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<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6. In applications nos. 11299\/17, 61811\/17, 55453\/18, 27393\/19, 52413\/19, 64953\/19, 4799\/20, 5836\/20, 6303\/20, 7059\/20, 7569\/20, 8591\/20, 21631\/20 and 14499\/21, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the loss of victim status by the applicants for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169\/2017 amending and completing Law no.\u00a0254\/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention.<\/p>\n 7. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December\u00a02019 was held to be an effective one in the case of D\u00eerjan and \u015etefan v.\u00a0Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224\/15 and 50977\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a023\u201133, 15\u00a0April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the applications mentioned in paragraph 6 above, and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).<\/p>\n 8. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 11299\/17, 61811\/17, 55453\/18, 27393\/19, 52413\/19, 64953\/19, 4799\/20, 5836\/20, 6303\/20, 7059\/20, 7569\/20, 8591\/20, 21631\/20 and 14499\/21 are incompatible ratione\u00a0personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 9. In addition, the Government argued that all the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at the domestic level, and invited the Court to declare the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n 10. The Court recalls that in Polgar v.\u00a0Romania, (no.\u00a039412\/19, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a094\u201196, 20\u00a0July 2021), it held that an action in tort based on Articles\u00a01349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v.\u00a0Romania, (dec.), no.\u00a0122\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a030\u201133, 15 November 2022).<\/p>\n 11. However, in the case at hand, all the applicants either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13\u00a0January 2021 or continue to be held in allegedly poor conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection as to the non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations.<\/p>\n 12. Turning to the remaining 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\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 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.\u00a0Romania, (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\u2011law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate.<\/p>\n 15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. In applications nos.\u00a045802\/16, 11299\/17 and 23522\/17, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods.<\/p>\n 17. The Court has examined these complaints 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 IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 18. 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 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 during the periods specified in the appended table admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table;<\/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 18 January 2024, 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 Faris Vehabovi\u0107 ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SIMION AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 45802\/16 and 21 others \u2013 see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAnne Louise Bormann, 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 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n