FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF MANGU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 33079/16 and 9 other applications -
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
6 June 2019
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mangu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georges Ravarani, President,
 Marko Bošnjak,
 Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2019,
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. Notice of the applications was given 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. In application no. 33079/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 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. In applications nos. 36722/16 and 36739/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged out of time. 8. The Court observes that in application no. 36722/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Miercurea Ciuc Prison, which ceased on 2 July 2015 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 22 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9. Moreover, the Court notes that in application no. 36739/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Jilava Prison, which ceased on 26 January 2005 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 20 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 36722/16 and 36739/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 11. 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). 12. 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. 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the continuous situation of the applicants’ conditions of detention in some of the cases, 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. 14. III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15. In application no. 33079/16, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 16. The Court has examined this application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17.

Outcome for Article 3: violation