FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BIBAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 39129/16 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 March 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Biban and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 February 2021,
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. In some applications, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
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 APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT PART OF APPLICATION No. 63373/16
6. By letter received on 5 March 2020, the applicant in application no. 63373/16 informed the Court that he had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 169/2017 for the period of his detention from 16 May 2016 to 23 December 2019. He therefore asked the Court to strike out this part of his application.
7. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of his application and it should thus be struck out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. 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.”
9. In all applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention.
10. 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 applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (see the appended table).
11. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of 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, except for application no. 63373/16, in which this part of the application is being struck out on the applicant’s request (see paragraphs 6-7 above).
12. Turning to the periods of the applicants’ detention as specified in the appended table, 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, 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In application nos. 39129/16, 52020/16, 58519/16 and 61831/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including, in some of them, related to the conditions of their detention during periods preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
17. The Court has examined these applications listed in the appended table 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 Article 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.
18. It follows that this part of application nos. 39129/16, 52020/16, 58519/16 and 61831/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. 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.”
20. 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.
21. 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 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;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 11 March 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
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
Year of birth
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39129/16
16/08/2016
Mircea BIBAN
1980
Iași Prison
24/12/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 20 days
2,2 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
414 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019
3,000
52020/16
18/10/2016
Bogdan-Gigi ȘERBAN
1986
Craiova Prison
24/12/2019 to
21/10/2020
9 months and 28 days
1,1 - 2 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, bunk beds, no or restricted access to warm water
516 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019
1,000
55911/16
15/11/2016
Constantin PANCU
1970
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
21/12/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 23 days
1,1 - 1,5 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
444 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 11/03/2014 - 20/12/2019
3,000
58519/16
20/10/2016
Costel PETCU
1970
Câmpina Police Station, Mărgineni Prison and Colibași and Rahova Prison Hospitals
27/08/2015
Pending
More than 5 years and 4 months and 26 days
2,1 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 27/08 - 26/10/2015, 30/10 – 12/11/2015, 25/11 – 07/12/2015, 16-29/02/2016, 01-12/04/2016, 24/05 – 06/06/2016, 19/08 – 26/09/2016, 25/01 – 12/03/2018), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, lack of requisite medical assistance
12 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 27/08/2015 - 23/12/2019
5,000
61831/16
24/11/2016
Florin-Violin FARCAȘ
1970
Gherla Prison
21/12/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 23 days
2,2 - 2,9 m²
overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 20/12/2019
3,000
63373/16
09/12/2016
Nicolae-Grigore TELCIAN
1980
Gherla Prison
24/12/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 29 days
1,6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
240 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 16/05/2016 - 23/12/2019
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy