THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BLEJUŞCĂ v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 7910/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 mars 2013
FINAL
19/06/2013
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Blejuşcă v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 February 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 7910/10) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Maxim Silvanus Blejuşcă (“the applicant”), on 27 January 2010.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea.
3. As Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), the President of the Chamber appointed Ms Kristina Pardalos to sit as ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
4. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Timişoara Prison. He complained specifically of overcrowding and poor conditions of hygiene.
5. On 15 February 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Timişoara.
7. On 11 October 2011 the Timiş County Court sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for robbery.
8. The applicant has been detained in Timişoara Prison since 3 September 2009 until the present (except for the period between 11 and 18 February 2010, when he was hospitalised in the medical unit of Rahova Prison).
Conditions of detention
9. The conditions of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties.
1. The applicant’s account
10. The applicant complained mainly of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He complained of the following.
11. The cell occupied by him was 4-5 metres in length, 3.2 in width and 3 metres high and he shared it with eight other detainees, one of whom was suffering from syphilis.
12. The temperature in the cell was not adequate because the window was broken; in winter the detainees covered it with a blanket.
13. Sanitary conditions were very poor and the cell was full of parasites.
14. The installations in the bathroom were defective.
15. The prison had no place specially designed for eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells, where there was no other furniture than the beds.
16. The applicant alleged that before they were transported to the courts they were forced to leave the cell and strip naked. In addition, before being transported to the court they were all kept in a small room (3.5 metres in length and 4 metres high) for at least one hour.
17. He also contended that the detainees were not allowed to take a walk every day, there were no educational, cultural or sports activities available, and they were simply left in their cells all the time with no occupation.
2. The Government’s account
18. The Government submitted in their observations that, in general, the conditions in Timişoara Prison were adequate.
19. They further submitted that the applicant had spent most of the relevant time in cell no. 85, where non-smoking inmates were held. The cell had a length of 6.2 m, a width of 3.4 m and a height of 3 m. It was fitted with 9 beds and throughout the period when the applicant was held there the number of inmates never exceeded the number of beds. According to the information provided by the national authorities, currently there are 7 inmates held in cell no. 85.
20. The cell was fitted with a window which was 150 cm long and 177 cm high, providing good ventilation, thermal isolation and natural lighting.
21. Moreover, the cell was equipped with a television set, adequate furniture, electricity and sanitary facilities.
22. The penitentiary had its own electricity and heating.
23. Each cell had a sanitary annex fitted with toilet, sink and shower. Cold water was supplied constantly and warm water was supplied every day in accordance with a schedule set up by the prison’s manager.
24. As regards the hygiene conditions, according to the same information, the Timişoara Penitentiary has contract with a specialised company and consequently there were periodical insect and rodent control visits. The last one had been carried out in 2010.
25. The inmates’ clothes were cleaned at the prison’s laundry. In 2010 each inmate had been provided with two bed sheets and one cotton blanket.
26. The applicant’s allegation that he had to share the cell with persons suffering from syphilis or other contagious disease was denied by the prison administration.
27. As regards the daily walk and the educational, cultural and sports activities available, according to the Government the penitentiary had two yards for sports activities: the first for fitness and ping‑pong and the second for the daily walk and mini-football.
28. As to the transportation conditions, the Government submitted that a personal search was required by the Safety Rules for Places of Detention in specific cases, including when prisoners were bring transported to and from the courts. The search was carried out by an officer of the same gender, using special screens for privacy. When the number of detainees exceeded 22, they were transported to the court by bus.
3. The applicant’s domestic complaints concerning the material conditions of detention
29. The applicant lodged several complaints concerning the poor conditions of his detention with the Parliament, Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman. He did not made such complaints with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences on the basis of Law no. 275/2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
30. Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Law no. 275/2006, and from the relevant parts of the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) on prison conditions, are given in the case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, (no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
31. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Timişoara Prison. He mainly complained of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He 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.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
32. The Government raised a preliminary objection of non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies, in so far as the applicant had not complained to the authorities about the conditions of his detention.
33. The applicant disagreed. He alleged that he had lodged several complaints concerning his conditions of detention with the Parliament, Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman.
2. The Court’s assessment
34. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint concerns the material conditions of his detention and, in particular, overcrowding and poor sanitary facilities for the period starting from 3 September 2009 up to the present.
35. The Court also notes that in recent judgments concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions indicated by the Government did not constitute effective remedies (see Lăutaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 84, 18 October 2011, and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
It therefore rejects the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
36. Noting further that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, the Court concludes that it must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
37. The applicant reiterated that he had been held in inadequate conditions, that the cell had been overcrowded and that the conditions had not been conducive to maintaining proper hygiene.
38. The Government contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary measures to ensure adequate conditions of detention for the applicant.
2. The Court’s assessment
39. The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well‑being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
40. When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
41. In previous cases where applicants have had at their disposal less than three square metres of personal space the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010; Răcăreanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011).
42. The focal point in the case at hand is the assessment by the Court of the living space afforded to the applicant in Timişoara Prison.
43. The Court notes that even at the occupancy rate put forward by the Government, the applicant’s living space seems to have been less than three square metres, which falls short of the standards imposed by the case‑law (see Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 122, ECHR 2009 ... (extracts)).
44. The Court further notes that other circumstances of the applicant’s detention, such as the hygiene conditions, are in dispute between the parties.
45. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, since it considers that the overcrowding of the applicant’s cell gives it sufficient grounds to draw substantive conclusions on whether the conditions of the applicant’s detention amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
46. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the conditions of the applicant’s detention have caused him suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and which attained the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
47. 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.”
A. Damage
48. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
49. The Government considered that the request for non‑pecuniary compensation was excessive and that a conclusion of a violation of the Convention would suffice to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage allegedly incurred.
50. The Court considers that the applicant suffered distress as a result of the conditions of his detention. It therefore awards him EUR 6,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
51. The applicant also claimed the value of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, without indicating any amount.
52. The Government claimed that the applicant had not submitted documentary evidence in support of his claims.
53. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the fact that the applicant neither specified the sum claimed nor submitted any documents in this connection, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
54. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention in Timişoara Prison;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 6,600 (six thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, which is to be to be converted into the respondent State’s national currency at the rate applicable on 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 March 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy