FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF CIOBOTARU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 23572/14 and 3 others -
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
14 June 2018
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ciobotaru 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 24 May 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.”
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, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the application of the six-month rule to the continuous situation of the applicant’s conditions of detention in case no. 41700/15, 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.

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