FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF IANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application nos. 41762/15 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 July 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Iancu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2020,
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 Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
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 under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
THE LAWJOINDER 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.THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION No. 41762/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In application no. 41762/15 the Government submitted an unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95 § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. 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.”
8. In application no. 17686/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicant’s loss of victim status for his detention as of 24 July 2012 since they claimed that he was afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for this part of his detention.
9. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23‑33, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicant in application no. 17686/16. Indeed, the applicant was afforded adequate redress for the period of detention from 24 July 2012 to 26 October 2017, the date of his release from prison.
10. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that this part of application no. 17686/16 is 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.
11. In applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17, 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.
12. The Court observes that in application no. 17686/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibași Prison which ceased on 16 August 2004 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.
13. Moreover, the Court notes that in application no. 36689/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Galați Prison which ceased on 11 May 2015 by his transfer to other prison facilities 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.
14. The Court further observes that in application no. 5273/17 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Sălaj County Police Arrest and Satu Mare Prison ceased on 12 June 2015 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 January 2017, that is, more than six months after the transfer.
15. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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.
19. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
21. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
22. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Domestic compensation awarded (in days)
based on total period calculated domestically
41762/15
12/10/2015
Tudor IANCU
09/08/1971
Drobeta-Turnu-Severin Prison
01/01/2005 to 01/01/2008
3 year(s) and 1 day(s)
Poarta-Albă Prison
02/01/2008 to 01/01/2009
1 year(s)
Timișoara Prison
02/01/2009 to 01/01/2015
6 year(s)
Târgu-Mureș Prison
02/01/2015 to 12/07/2017
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)
1.3 m²
0.9 m²
2.6 m²
2.5 m²
overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack or inadequate furniture, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
5,000
17686/16
19/04/2016
Ion GRIGORE
23/05/1965
Colibași and Jilava Prisons
17/11/2004 to 24/07/2012
7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1.7 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food
5,000
384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 26/10/2017
33231/16
30/06/2016
Gabriel AMARIEI
12/05/1974
Peter Irina Maria
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Arrest, Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons
16/02/2011 to
17/02/2016
5 year(s) and 2 day(s)
1.5 - 2.7 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 19/11/2012 - 10/11/2014), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
5,000
35182/16
13/06/2016
Florentin-Daniel POP
23/02/1979
Bucharest Central Arrest and Rahova Prison
05/07/2014 to 13/01/2016
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)
2.4 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 07/10/2014 - 11/02/2015 and 30/09/2015 - 13/01/2016), lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water
3,000
36689/16
22/07/2016
Cristi-Nicolae HELGIU
22/11/1989
Galaţi Prison
06/10/2015 to 19/10/2016
1 year(s) and 14 day(s)
1.2 - 1.6 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
45134/16
26/07/2016
Marian ENACHE
17/02/1990
Mărgărit Ionela
Bucharest
Galați and Brăila Prisons
09/09/2011 to 13/09/2016
5 year(s) and 5 day(s)
1.4 - 2.5 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 06/08/2015 - 13/09/2016), poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water
5,000
54287/16
05/10/2016
Alexandru-Christian LOGOFĂTU
20/01/1994
Mehedinți County Police Inspectorate, Drobeta-Turnu-Severin, Craiova, Pelendava and Găești Prisons
23/09/2014 to 21/12/2016
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1.4 - 2.5 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 11/03/2016 - 21/12/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water
3,000
329/17
22/12/2016
Horia-Remus CHIȘ
15/09/1977
Stancu Adrian
Oradea
Rahova and Oradea Prisons
26/05/2015 to 29/11/2016
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 4 day(s)
2.1 - 2.9 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 05/04/2016 - 29/11/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food
3,000
5273/17
06/01/2017
Dorel BUDAI
22/11/1994
Biro Vasile Rareș
Satu Mare
Satu Mare Prison
12/05/2016 to
01/11/2016
5 month(s) and 21 day(s)
1.1-1.2 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture
1,000
5283/17
06/01/2017
Paul-Alexandru GURZĂU
26/04/1995
Biro Vasile Rareș
Satu Mare
Sălaj County Police Arrest, Satu Mare and Bistrița Prisons
26/09/2014 to01/02/2017
2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1.7 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 23/03/2015 - 22/06/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy