Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79

October 2005

Mogoş v. Romania - 20420/02

Judgment 13.10.2005 [Section III]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Alleged ill-treatment and inadequate living conditions in the transit centre of an international airport: no violation

Article 34

Hinder the exercise of the right of petition

Alleged obstacles in correspondence with the Court: no violation

Facts: The applicants, a couple and three of their children, are stateless persons of Romanian origin. In 1990 they left Romania for Germany and in 1993 they gave up their Romanian nationality. In March 2002 the German authorities deported them to Romania. Since then they have been in the transit centre at Bucharest Airport and have refused to enter Romanian territory.

On 1 April 2002 police officers accompanied by a number of doctors went to the transit centre to organise the urgent transfer of another stateless person to hospital. The parties differed as to the facts of the ensuing incident. The applicants claimed that the police officers had threatened and assaulted them, whereas the Government alleged that the police officers had been attacked by the applicants. Proceedings were subsequently instituted against the first two applicants but were discontinued. The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the border police officers, alleging unlawful arrest, wrongful investigation and ill-treatment. The complaint led to an investigation, but those proceedings were also discontinued.

The applicants also maintained that the living conditions at the transit centre were “catastrophic”. They additionally claimed that they were suffering from various illnesses and were not being given appropriate medical treatment, an allegation which the Government denied. They further submitted that their correspondence with the Court had been interfered with, in that their mail had been opened and there had been delays in delivering it.

Law: Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion): The Court had found in a recent case against Romania that an appeal against a discharge order given by a public prosecutor did not constitute an appropriate and effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention. It could see no r