CASE OF GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

 
 
 
 
 
FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 1659/16 and 7 others -
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
16 May 2019
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
 

 
 
In the case of Grancea and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 April 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2.  Notice of the applications was given to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. In applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7.  The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, 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 “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
8.  In the leading case of Rezmiveș 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.
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-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11.  In applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
12.  The Court has examined these applications 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 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.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”
14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15.  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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Decides to join the applications;
 
2.  Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in all applications admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 8981/16 and 19346/16 inadmissible;
 
3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
 
4.  Holds
(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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 May 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
 

 
 
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]   
1659/16
04/02/2016
Traian-Ioan Grancea
06/07/1979
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
21/05/2014
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s)
1.4 m²
Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light.
3,000   
7791/16
17/03/2016
Costel-Cornel Calinciuc
04/10/1979
 
Represented by
Ionuţ Iulian Vasilache
Vaslui
Bucharest Police Section no. 6, Rahova, Tulcea and Vaslui Prisons
19/09/2009 to
17/05/2016
6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1.1 - 2.44 m²
Overcrowding (save for the period of 20/12/2013 - 17/05/2016 in Vaslui Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.
5,000   
8981/16
08/02/2016
Károly-Antonio Dioszegi
11/08/1985
 
Represented by
Adrian-Samuilă Rusu,
Cluj-Napoca
 
Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons
21/05/2015 to
05/11/2015
5 month(s) and 16 day(s)
1.8 - 2.9 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food.
1,000   
12910/16
28/06/2016
Vlad-Florian Stancu
19/09/1984
Giurgiu Prison
19/11/2014
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2.33 - 2.91 m²
Overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.
3,000   
12961/16
25/03/2016
Paul-Dumitru Cazbir
26/11/1977
Braşov Police, Codlea, Jilava and Arad Prisons
09/08/2002
pending
More than 16 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 day(s)
0.3 - 2.4 m²
Overcrowding (save for the period 05/08/2011 to 16/02/2017 in Arad Prison), lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.
 
5,000   
13680/16
25/04/2016
Levente Mihok
25/05/1974
Harghita Police
10/03/2005 to
26/05/2005
2 month(s) and 17 day(s)
 
 
 
 
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
26/05/2005
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28  day(s)
2.76 m²
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.5 - 2.2 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food
 
 
 
 
Overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise
in fresh air.
5,000   
19346/16
18/08/2016
Sorin Vulpeanu
29/08/1987
Arad Prison
18/05/2015
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s)
3.9 – 5.8 m²
No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food.
 
3,000   
19706/16
09/05/2016
Petru-Robert Sîrb
06/03/1978
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
05/11/2013
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s)
1.33 - 2.41 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.
5,000
 
[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy