FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF COVACIU v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 3403/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Covaciu v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 January 2018.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms N. Trif, lawyer practising in Arad.
3. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of her detention served between 23 August 2011 and 16 October 2017 in the Arad County Police Station and the Arad Prison.
THE LAWas to THE LOCUS STANDI of Mr V. covaciu
6. On 6 January 2021, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant, Ms Felicia Covaciu, had died on 7 March 2018. The applicant’s representative, also acting as the representative of the applicant widower, Mr Vasile Covaciu, confirmed his intention to pursue the present application and submitted a copy of the marriage certificate attesting that Mr Covaciu was the surviving spouse.
7. The Registry acknowledged receipt of the letter of 6 January 2021 and invited the representative to provide a copy of the inheritance certificate (“certificat de moștenitor”). At the same time, the letter of 6 January 2021 was sent to the Government for comments.
8. By a letter of 12 September 2022, the representative informed the Court that because the applicant had no assets at the time of her death, there was nothing to inherit and, thus, Mr Covaciu could not obtain an inheritance certificate. The representative further explained that the marriage certificate showed that Mr Covaciu was the surviving spouse and had standing as the applicant’s legal heir, according to the domestic laws.
9. The Government objected, arguing that the complaints related to the conditions of detention have a strictly personal character and cannot be pursued by an heir; they added that in any event, Mr Covaciu had not submitted an inheritance certificate to prove his legal standing. In response to the Government’s observations, the representative reiterated the arguments expounded in the letter of 12 September 2022.
10. The Court notes that, from the documents submitted by the parties, it transpires that the applicant has no other close relatives. Moreover, the Government did not contest that Mr Covaciu is the applicant’s surviving spouse and heir, but merely pointed to the absence of an inheritance certificate. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the surviving spouse as heir. Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicant’s surviving spouse has a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016). The Government’s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected.
11. Accordingly, the Court decides that Mr Vasile Covaciu has standing to continue the proceedings on behalf of late Ms Felicia Covaciu, to whom the Court will continue referring as the applicant in the present judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of her detention. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Government did not raise any other objection with regards to the present application.
14. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
15. 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.
16. 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 applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.
17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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 sum indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares that Mr V. Covaciu, the widow of the applicant, has standing to pursue that application in her stead;Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant’s heir, Mr V. Covaciu, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
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
(in euros)[1]
3403/18
06/01/2018
Felicia COVACIU
1966
Deceased in 2018
Heir:
Vasile Covaciu
1979
Nicoleta Trif
Arad
Arad County Police Station; Arad Prison
23/08/2011 to
16/10/2017
6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)
-
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture
The applicant did not benefit from compensation awarded in days, as she was released before the entry into force of the compensatory remedy introduced by virtue of
Law no. 169/2017.
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy