FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24907/16
Mircea IACOVIȚĂ against Romania
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 October 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government pleaded that the applicants had lost their victim status due to the fact that they had benefitted from the remedy offered by Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. They asked the Court to reject the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.
The applicants disagreed claiming that the compensation awarded to them had not been sufficient.
The Court notes that, in its recent decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible considering that the applicants had lost their victim status. The Court noted that Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences, adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017) and in force between October 2017 and December 2019, had been an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law had set forth a compensatory remedy, available for periods of detention ranging from 2012 to 2019 and allowing the deduction of six days for 30 days spent in conditions of detention that fell short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Dîrjan and Ştefan, cited above, § 28). This benefit had impacted on the term of the prison sentences giving the detainees the opportunity of earlier release on parole.
Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on their admissibility. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan, awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison.
The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2020.
Liv TigerstedtArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Domestic compensation awarded (in days)
based on total period calculated domestically
24907/16
09/06/2016
Mircea IACOVIȚĂ
16/09/1967
Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons
22/07/2015 to 10/05/2019
3 years and 9 months and 19 days
366 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 22/07/2015 - 10/05/2019
28427/16
12/07/2016
Ovidiu CZAPO
17/10/1981
Ligia Stoica,
Medias
Jilava Prison Hospital
16/08/2013 to 18/09/2018
5 years and 1 month and 3 days
312 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 16/08/2013 - 18/09/2018
31338/16
28/05/2016
Mircea VLAD
11/08/1969
Ionela Mărgărit,
Bucharest
Galați and Brăila Prisons
18/09/2014 to 06/11/2017
3 years and 1 month and 20 days
228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 18/09/2014 - 06/11/2017
47624/16
11/10/2016
Gheorghe VILAUT
19/10/1985
Vasile Rareș Biro,
Satu Mare
Maramureș County Police Station, Gherla, Rahova, Arad, Jilava and Baia Mare Prisons
25/01/2013 to 15/11/2017
4 years and 9 months and 22 days
216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/01/2013 - 15/11/2017
48867/16
01/11/2016
Carmen DINU
05/02/1978
Irina Maria Peter,
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Arrest and Târgșor Prison
20/05/2015 to 28/12/2018
3 years and 7 months and 9 days
258 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 20/05/2015 - 28/12/2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy