FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DINU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 52160/15 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dinu 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 April 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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained 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 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.
8. 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 (for details see the appended table).
9. 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.
10. Turning to the remaining 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).
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 were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 57949/15 and 79522/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
15. The Court has examined these complaints 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.
It follows that these parts of applications nos. 57949/15 and 79522/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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.”
17. 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.
18. 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 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaArmen 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
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 domestically
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
52160/15
15/12/2015
Alexandru-Virgil DINU
1981
Arad Police Inspectorate
18/01/2013 to
14/05/2013
3 months and 27 days
Arad Prison
14/05/2013 to
11/11/2013
5 months and 29 days
Arad Prison
13/06/2014 to
17/08/2015
1 years and 2 months and 5 days
2 - 2.6 m²
overcrowding, insufficient natural lighting or heating, lack of a bathroom, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy walls, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, small courtyard
mouldy walls, poor quality of food, presence of insects, small courtyard, lack of educational activities, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack or inadequate furniture
228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 14/05/2013 to 05/03/2018, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5
3,000
57949/15
18/12/2015
Dumitru ALBOTĂ
1978
Constanța County Police Station, Poarta Albă and Slobozia Prisons
28/10/2011 to
23/07/2012
8 months and 26 days
1.4 - 2.1 m²
overcrowding (save for the period 28/10/2011 -16/01/2012), poor conditions of hygiene, poor quality of food, limited access to water, inadequate sanitary facilities, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of natural light
402 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 10/03/2018
1,000
59245/15
05/02/2016
George-Răzvan CORCIOVĂ
1975
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Police, Rahova and Mărgineni Prisons
27/06/2009 to
23/07/2012
3 years and 27 days
1.42 - 3 m²
overcrowding
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water
468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 14/01/2019
3,000
23351/16
06/06/2016
Dumitru SAVU
1986
Târgu Jiu County Police
20/03/2014 to
16/04/2014
28 days
4 m²
insufficient sanitary facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate sanitary facilities
252 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 16/04/2014 to 07/11/2017
1,000
58521/16
01/11/2016
Adrian-Dorel ALI
1994
Giurgiu Prison
24/12/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 2 months and 8 days
2.76 - 2.86 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of toiletries, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water
510 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 14/11/2012 to 23/12/2019
3,000
79522/16
24/11/2016
Ion STANCIU
1971
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Slobozia, Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons
25/10/2007 to
23/07/2012
4 years and 8 months and 29 days
Tulcea Prison
24/12/2019
pending
More than 1 year and 2 months and 8 days
1.39 - 2.62 m²
2.5 - 2.6 m²
overcrowding (save for 25/10/2007-20/12/2007, 28/01/2008-07/02/2008, 16/06/2008-21/10/2008, 20/05/2009-26/06/2009, 21/09/2009-12/10/2009)
bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food
overcrowding
bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food
534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy