CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB3159364 { width:123.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sE522FEE7 { width:116.54%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB53D5CE0 { width:3.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sC37E85FF { width:12.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8E8E48B { width:12.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8E671DE { width:16.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DE5A8AC { width:7.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s854BEFA3 { width:25.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3749023F { width:20.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7C40FD4F { width:3.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC1480 { width:12.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7167EE7 { width:12.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9332D132 { width:16.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s50597860 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sA2AF54E5 { width:7.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s89301AB3 { width:25.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s86209B65 { width:20.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE1E434D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF TOPALESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 17850/16 and 5 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 March 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Topalescu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anja Seibert-Fohr , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 March 2024, 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.     The Romanian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods specified in the appended table. They relied on Article   3 of the Convention. 7.     The Government argued that the applicant in application no.   11619/17 had lost the victim status for the period of detention specified in the appended table because he was afforded adequate redress based on Law no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no.   254/2013 on the execution of sentences for that specific period of detention. 8.     The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December   2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v.   Romania (dec.), nos.   14224/15 and 50977/15, §§   23 ‑ 33, 15   April   2020. 9.     However, due to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s detention, he did not effectively benefit from the said remedy. While the domestic authorities acknowledged the breach of the Convention, adequate and effective redress was not afforded to him. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection concerning the loss of the victim status by the applicant. 10.     The Government also argued that 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 these applications inadmissible. 11.     The Court recalls that in Polgar v.   Romania , no.   39412/19, §§   94 ‑ 96, 20   July   2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles   1349 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.   Romania , (dec.), no.   122/17, §§   30 ‑ 33, 15   November 2022). 12.     However, the applicants either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13   January   2021 or continue to be held in such conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations. 13.     Turning to the periods of the applicants’ detention the details of which are indicated in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. 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, §§   12241, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 159, 10   January   2012). 14.     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. 15.     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 during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate. 16.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 17.     In applications nos. 17850/16 and 23713/17, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during other periods. 18.     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 do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 19.     It follows that these parts of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 20.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others , cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, for the periods indicated in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 17850/16 and 23713/17 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table; 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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Anja Seibert-Fohr   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     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 Year 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]     17850/16 15/10/2016 Cristian ‑ Lucian TOPALESCU 1981 Oradea Prison 03/10/2006 to 23/07/2012 5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s) 2.37 - 2.77   m² overcrowding (save for 03/10/2006 - 09/10/2006; 07/02/2008 - 24/02/2011), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water 5,000       42250/16 15/11/2016 Ionuţ COSMA 1989 Vaslui County Police Station; Vaslui, Iași, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital 15/06/2008 to 23/07/2012 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 9 day(s)   Vaslui Prison 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) 1.38 - 2.94   m²                           2.86 - 2.94   m²     overcrowding (save for 26/07/2010 - 16/09/2010; 13/06/2012 - 20/06/2012; 18/05/2020 - 09/06/2020; 26/03/2021 - 16/04/2021; 03/03/2022 - 01/04/2022), poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents     5,000     11619/17 19/04/2017 Ruben URSULEAN 1990 Suceava County Police Station; Botoșani Prison 26/08/2016 to 04/05/2017 8 month(s) and 9 day(s) - lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet 1,000     23713/17 20/03/2017 Ioan ISTVAN 1961 Rahova, Giurgiu, Aiud and Arad Prisons; Dej, Mioveni (Colibași) and Rahova Prison Hospitals 26/11/2010 pending More than 12 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s) 1.78   m² overcrowding (only for 26/11/2010 - 13/12/2010), inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower 5,000     31118/17 18/05/2017 Gheorghe MARIN 1965 Găești and Giurgiu Prisons; Mioveni Prison Hospital 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s)     3,000     38336/17 14/07/2017 Adrian HOLCA 1977 Suceava County Police Station, Iași and Botoșani Prisons 17/03/2015 to 18/10/2017 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s) 0.97 - 2.12   m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.