BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 1659/16 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 353 (16 May 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2019/353.html Cite as: [2019] ECHR 353 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
( Application s no s . 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
,
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant s complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In applications nos. 8981/16and 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 applicant s 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 applicant s were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant s ' 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. 42525/07and 60800/08, §§ 149 - 159, 10 January 2012). 8. In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12and 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 applicant s ' 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. 8981/16and 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. 61467/12and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum s 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. 8981/16and 19346/16inadmissible;
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 applicant s , 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 Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani
Acting D eputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
( inadequate conditions of detention )
|
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] | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
