FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SANDU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 27855/17 and 19 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 December 2021
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sandu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Armen Harutyunyan, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2021,
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. Following the death of Mr Tudor (application no. 2673/18), his children informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application introduced by the applicant. 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. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 2673/18
6. On 30 August 2021, after the communication of the case, the representative of the applicant in application no. 2673/18 informed the Court that the applicant, Mr Tudor, had died on 26 July 2021. The representative also notified the Court that the applicant’s children, Ms Daniela-Loredana Tudor and Ms Mihaela-Simona Tudor, wanted to pursue the application on their late father’s stead. 7. The representative also submitted documents issued by a notary office according to which the applicant’s children had accepted the inheritance following the death of their father. 8. This information and documents were communicated to the Government for comments. No comments on the matter have been received from them. 9. The Court observes that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the heirs. The Court also finds that the applicant’s children have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016). 10. Accordingly, the Court decides that Ms Daniela-Loredana Tudor and Ms Mihaela-Simona Tudor have standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 2673/18 on behalf of late Mr Tudor. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants complained 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.”
12. 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, §§ 122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012). 13. 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. 14. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the arguments raised by the parties, including the Government’s objection related to the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies, 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 (including its findings in the recent case of Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the table appended below, were inadequate. 15. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In applications nos. 42881/17, 44495/17, 67182/17, 81285/17, 2668/18, 2673/18, 4561/18 and 8476/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 17. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation