FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CHIRIAC AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 57831/13, 68807/13, 69701/13, 69716/13,
80547/13, 142/14, 1730/14, 17108/14, 20213/14,
21880/14 and 29617/14)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 March 2016
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chiriac and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 February 2016,
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 applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
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
I. JOINDER 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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.”
7. 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, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑165, 10 January 2012). 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, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145-147, 149).
8. In the leading case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. The applicants also complained of other aspects concerning material conditions of detention. In the light of its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine these remaining aspects (see, Epistatu v. Romania, no. 29343/10, § 55, 24 September 2013, and Bahnă v. Romania, no. 75985/12, § 53, 13 November 2014).
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some applicants raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the 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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Butiuc and Dumitrof v. Romania, no. 19320/07, 15 July 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining issues under Article 3 of the Convention raised by the applicants in respect of the material conditions of detention;
5. 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 3 March 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
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 name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[i]
57831/13
09/09/2013
Claudiu Adrian CHIRIAC
16/06/1988
Miercurea Ciuc
Penitentiary
25/02/2012 to
15/11/2013
1 year(s) and 9 month(s)
1.28 - 3.3 m²
overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene
4,400
68807/13
08/10/2013
Augustin Viorel ŢIGAN
16/08/1958
Demeter Ioan Petru
Satu Mare
Satu Mare Penitentiary
15/03/2013 to
29/08/2013
0 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Timișoara Penitentiary
02/09/2013 to
10/02/2014
0 year(s) and 6 month(s)
1.16 - 1.93 m²
1.63 - 2.34 m²
overcrowding
overcrowding
3,000
69701/13
28/10/2013
Vasile STOLERU
24/11/1975
Stoleru Adriana Elena
Poloboc,
Neamț County
Bacău Police Inspectorate and Bacău Penitentiary
24/08/2011 to
24/04/2014
2 year(s) and 9 month(s)
3.2 m²
2.13 - 3.96 m²
Bacău Police Inspectorate - overcrowding, insufficient walking time outside the cell
Bacău Penitentiary – overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene
6,200
69716/13
23/10/2013
Ionel GHIRVASE
02/12/1963
Dănilă Monica
Cotu-Vameș, Neamț County
Arrest Centre of Neamț Police Inspectorate and Bacău Penitentiary
19/06/2013 to
06/01/2014
0 year(s) and 7 month(s)
n/a
2.14 – 3.38 m²
Arrest Centre of Neamt Police Inspectorate - lack of a bathroom in the cell, insufficient access to showers (once per week)
Bacău Penitentiary - overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene
3,000
80547/13
19/11/2013
Ghiță SPĂTARU
28/07/1982
Galați Penitentiary
14/06/2011
pending
4 year(s) and 8 month(s)
1.71 m²
overcrowding, lack of sufficient natural light
9,600
142/14
13/12/2013
Dănuț STOICA
02/03/1981
Ţîru Sorin
Prejmer, Brașov County
Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary
15/03/2013 to
07/07/2014
1 year(s) and 4 month(s)
0.87 - 1.9 m²
overcrowding
3,600
1730/14
19/12/2013
Valentin IOSIF
13/01/1979
Penitentiaries of Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu and Aiud
23/06/2006 to
18/12/2014
8 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Jilava Penitentiary
05/05/2015 to
03/09/2015
0 year(s) and 4 month(s)
1.52 – 1.93 m²
1.56 - 2.05 m²
3.33 m²
1.88 – 3.9 m²
1.52 - 1.93 m²
Jilava Penitentiary – overcrowding
Rahova Penitentiary – overcrowding
Giurgiu Penitentiary – overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene
Aiud Penitentiary – overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene
overcrowding
12,000
17108/14
17/03/2014
Tudorel MIHAI
01/09/1966
Slobozia Penitentiary
13/04/2012 to
15/05/2014
2 year(s) and 2 month(s)
2.04 - 2.47 m²
overcrowding
5,100
20213/14
07/04/2014
Gheorghe MUSTAFA
04/01/1976
Târgu Jiu Penitentiary
14/08/2013 to
29/08/2014
1 year(s) and 1 month(s)
0.95 - 1.31 m²
overcrowding, insufficient access to warm water, lack of an adequate place to serve meals
3,200
21880/14
31/03/2014
Radu Cristian DEAC
02/05/1979
Cluj Police Inspectorate and Penitentiaries of Gherla and Baia Mare
20/03/2013
pending
2 year(s) and 10 month(s)
2.4 m²
1.73 - 2.06 m²
2.05 –
2.73 m²
Cluj Police Inspectorate - overcrowding
Gherla Penitentiary - overcrowding
Baia Mare Penitentiary - overcrowding
6,300
29617/14
06/06/2014
Djihlah MAYAN-NA
02/03/1990
Rahova Penitentiary
03/07/2012 to
20/03/2014
1 year(s) and 9 month(s)
1.56 - 2.05 m²
overcrowding, lack of an adequate place to serve meals, lack of an adequate space to store goods
4,400
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy