FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ASAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 33798/16 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 July 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Asan and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2023,
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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
7. As regards the admissibility of the applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status for certain periods of detention specified in the appended table because adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences was afforded for those specific periods of detention.
8. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the 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). The Court therefore accepts the Government’s objection and finds that a part of application no. 47561/16 (the relevant details described in the appended table) is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant was, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention, specified in the appended table. This part of the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.
9. Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention, the details of which are indicated in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
10. 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.
11. 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 during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
Remaining complaints13. In applications nos. 33798/16 and 46804/16 the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods.
14. The Court has examined these complaints 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.
15. It follows that this part of the two applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention admissible for the periods specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;Holdsa) 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 6 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant [1]
33798/16
20/07/2016
Constantin-Nicolae ASAN
1991
Craiova, Drobeta Turnu-Severin Prisons
16/09/2013 to
03/02/2017
3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)
0.94 - 2.06 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air etc.
3,000
35352/16
02/08/2016
Ovidiu Nicolae SARCINĂ
1989
Târgu Jiu Prison
25/06/2015 to
01/11/2016
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1.41 - 1.84 m²
overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air etc.
3,000
39669/16
12/09/2016
Mario VITTIGLIO
1966
Lancia Manuela
Colfelice
Rahova, Jilava and Colibași (Mioveni) Prisons; Rahova Prison Hospital
28/07/2015 to
27/07/2017
2 year(s)
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
46804/16
30/09/2016
Robert-Marian PREDOI
1986
Deva Prison
28/06/2016 to
20/03/2017
8 month(s) and 22 day(s)
Deva Prison
08/05/2017 to
05/09/2017
3 month(s) and 29 day(s)
overcrowding
lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
3,000
47245/16
03/08/2016
Senol ZEVRI
1962
Constanța Poarta Albă Prison
09/05/2014 to
04/02/2016
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 27 day(s)
1.67-2.61 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of fresh air
3,000
47561/16
13/09/2016
Florin-Daniel VOICU
1983
Bucharest Rahova Prison
19/05/2018 to
02/08/2018
2 month(s) and 15 day(s)
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
282 days in
compensation for a
total period of 1,434
days spent in detention
in inadequate
conditions from
24/12/2013-16/03/2018
1,000
5521/17
23/12/2016
Csaba LADANY
1978
Trif Nicoleta
Arad
Arad County Police Station, Arad and Timisoara Prisons, Mioveni and Dej Prison Hospitals
19/02/2015
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 24 day(s)
2.03-2.77 m²
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, overcrowding
5,000
11363/17
20/03/2017
Vasile PAPUC
1957
Iași Prison
05/06/2011 to
23/07/2012
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.