Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Third Section Committee), May 21, 2015 (case CASE OF DRĂGUNĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA)

Defense:ROMANIA
Resolution Date:May 21, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (Third Section Committee)

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DRĂGUNĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 864/13, 17392/13, 22165/13, 47938/13, 52867/13 and 54100/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 May 2015

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Drăgună and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

             Luis López Guerra, President,              Johannes Silvis,              Valeriu Griţco, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 April 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in six 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 applications were communicated to the Romanian Government, (“the Government”).

    THE FACTS

    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

  4. The applicants complained about inadequate conditions of detention.

    THE LAW

    1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

  5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them in a single judgment.

    1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

  6. The applicants complained about inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:

    “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 Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2000‑XI; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-165, 10 January 2012); it recalls in particular that extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3; it may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36-40, 7 April 2005).

  8. In the leading case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§...

To continue reading

Request your trial