FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ÇETINER AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 15241/16 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 Çetiner 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, Acting 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 applications nos. 15241/16, 40075/16, 41548/16, 66807/16, and 49601/19, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the loss of victim status by the applicants for certain periods of detention specified in the appended table because they had been 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.
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). This remedy was available to the abovementioned applicants, and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).
9. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that certain parts of applications nos. 15241/16, 40075/16, 41548/16, 66807/16, and 49601/19 (see for the relevant details the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In applications nos. 40075/16 and 46113/16, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods.
15. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in 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.
16. It follows that these parts of the two applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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.”
18. 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, 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;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 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
(in euros)[1]
15241/16
20/10/2016
Hüseyin ÇETINER
1965
Timișoara, Craiova, Bacău, Rahova, Iași, Dâmbovița (Mărgineni), Giurgiu, Aiud, Poarta-Albă, Arad and Gherla Prisons; Jilava, Mioveni, Poarta-Albă and Dej Prison Hospitals
18/05/2001 to
23/07/2012
11 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)
Jilava Prison
23/12/2019 to
16/04/2020
3 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1.44 - 2.93 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 09/12/2004-01/04/2005, 05/10/2007-05/11/2007, 22/11/2007-09/06/2008, 12/12/2008-29/01/2009, and 12/09/2011-26/03/2012), lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture
396 days in compensation for a total period of 2,004 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 22/12/2019
5,000
33795/16
11/07/2016
Nicolae ISĂROIU
1974
Mioveni (Colibaşi), Drobeta Turnu Severin and Drobeta Turnu Severin - Vânjuleţ Prisons
09/12/2014 to
17/08/2016
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1.22 - 2.26 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 09/12/2014-29/01/2015 and 17/02/2016-29/02/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
-
3,000
40075/16
10/01/2017
Marius GHEORGHE
1982
Craiova Prison
30/12/2011 to
23/07/2012
6 month(s) and 24 day(s)
Poarta Albă, Craiova, Rahova and Slobozia Prisons
23/12/2019
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)
1.72 - 2.79 m²
overcrowding, (save for the periods: 12/03/2021-22/03/2021 and 20/12/2021-27/01/2022), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture
384 days in compensation for a total period of 1,943 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 22/12/2019
3,000
41548/16
07/11/2016
Mario-Eugen ALBU
1984
Arad Police Station; Arad, Aiud, Rahova, Timișoara Prisons; Mioveni (Colibași) Prison Hospital.
02/08/2003 to
23/07/2012
8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 day(s)
Arad Prison
07/01/2013 to
07/09/2016
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s)
Arad Prison
16/09/2016 to
27/11/2018
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 day(s)
1.1 - 2.9 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 07/03/2005-13/09/2005, 05/05/2006-07/02/2007, 03/09/2007-06/12/2007, 09/01/2008-28/02/2011, and 07/01/2013-26/11/2018), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
30 days in compensation for a total period of 176 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 06/01/2013 and 08/09/2016 – 15/09/2016
5,000
43779/16
25/07/2016
Iulian PETREA
1977
Bucharest General Police Inspectorate; Rahova, Iași and Găești Prisons
16/02/2009 to
17/05/2017
8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1.38 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 20/03/2015-17/06/2015 and 17/03/2016-17/05/2017), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell
5,000
46113/16
05/09/2016
Traian MELANIA
1986
Giurgiu, Mioveni and Tmișoara Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital
23/12/2019
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)
1.93 - 2.72 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 11/11/2020-16/11/2020 and 05/02/2021-26/03/2021), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food
3,000
66807/16
11/11/2016
Valentin VRABIE
1979
Alina Gherman
Miroslava
Iași Prison
11/10/2010 to
24/07/2012
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1.28 - 2.12 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water
444 days in compensation for a total period of 2245 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 25/09/2018
3,000
49601/19
31/03/2020
Adrian-Iuliu HERŢEG
1982
Cluj County Police Station
20/02/2018 to
11/04/2018
1 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Bistrița Prison
23/12/2019 to
22/12/2020
1 year(s)
2,48 - 2,9 m²
overcrowding, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
114 days in compensation for a total period of 596 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 12/04/2018 – 22/12/2019
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.