FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF LUNGU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 41744/15 and 9 others -
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
20 September 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lungu 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 30 August 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. In applications nos. 5470/16 and 12412/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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. 7290/16, 17935/16 and 26006/16, the Government raise a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the sixmonth time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period were lodged out of time. 8. The Court observes that in application no. 7290/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Mărgineni Prison, which ceased on 7 June 2011 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 18 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 9. The Court further observes that in application no. 17935/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Iaşi Prison, which ceased on 7 February 2013 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 19 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 10. Lastly, the Court notes that in application no. 26006/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Galaţi Prison, which ceased on 4 September 2015 by his transfer to another prison facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 9 June 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer. 11. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications nos. 7290/16, 17935/16 and 26006/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 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 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 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, as well as the Government’s objections 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. 15. III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In applications nos. 5470/16 and 12412/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 17. The Court has examined the above applications 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. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18.

Outcome for Article 3: violation