FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF BOLDIJAR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 46831/14 and 15 others -
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
29 March 2018
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Boldijar and Others 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,
Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2018,
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 applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). 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
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 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.”
A. Admissibility
7. In application no. 51850/15, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. They observed that, from 18 November 2014 to 25 May 2015, the applicant disposed of 5.04 sq. m of personal space, arguing that this period interrupted the continuity of his situation. For this reason, the Government further argued that the applicant’s complaint concerning his detention in Giurgiu Prison from 13 October 2014 to 25 May 2015 was lodged out of time. Consequently, the Government asked the Court to examine the applicant’s complaint regarding the inadequate conditions of his detention in Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons only as of 25 May 2015. 8. The Court notes that, even though the applicant disposed of more than 4 sq. m of personal space, other aspects of the physical conditions of detention remain relevant for the Court’s assessment of the adequacy of the applicant’s conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 140, ECHR 2016). In the applicant’s case, such aspects included, in particular, an infestation of the cell with insects, poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food and a lack of adequate furniture. In this regard, the Court further notes that it is not convinced by the Government’s observations on the adequacy of the aforementioned aspects of the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention and finds that, overall, the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Giurgiu Prison remained inadequate. It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection must be rejected. 9. The Court therefore finds that the applications listed in the appended table are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
10. 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, cited above, §§ 96‑101). 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). 11. In the pilot 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. 12. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 13. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.

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