 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> HALIP AND VELEA v. ROMANIA - 30008/13 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 503 (14 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/503.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD003000813, [2018] ECHR 503, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD003000813 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF HALIP AND VELEA v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 30008/13 and 37370/14)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Halip and Velea v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
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 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013.IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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."
13. 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, and Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to the applicant in application no. 37370/14. In application no. 30008/13, the Court makes no awards since the applicant failed to submit any claims for just satisfaction.14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application
no. 37370/14, 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;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant name Date of birth
| Representative name and location | Facility Start and end date Duration | Sq. m. per inmate | Specific grievances | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] | |
16/04/2013 | Traian-Ioan Halip 12/03/1957 |
| Suceava County Police Inspectorate 30/01/2013 to 08/02/2013 10 days | 1.85 m² | overcrowding, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet | Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: the proceedings started on 11/06/2004 and ended on 29/01/2013, amounting to a total length of 8 years, | 0 | |
14/05/2014 | Gheorghe Velea 04/01/1976 | Mateuț Gheorghiță Cluj-Napoca | Colibaşi Prison 19/11/2013 to 03/09/2015 1 year and 9 months and 16 days | 1.47 - 2.16 m² | overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, broken window, lack of an adequate place to dry clothes, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food | Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: the proceedings started on 19/07/2005 and ended on 18/11/2013, amounting to a total length of 8 years, | 3,900 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.