SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GALAIDA AND COPOSCIU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Applications nos. 29732/07 and 41421/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Galaida and Coposciu v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against the Republic of Moldova 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 Moldovan 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 and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...”
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 and 149).
8. In the leading case of Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, 15 September 2015, 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. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, 15 September 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. 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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
29732/07
03/07/2007
Nicolae GALAIDA
16/10/1961
Dimitrov Iurie
Taraclia
Prison no. 17
16/06/2007 to
25/03/2008
9 month(s) and 10 day(s)
4.48 m²
lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, overcrowding
3,000
41421/07
04/09/2007
Vitalie COPOSCIU
26/06/1975
Gutu Tatiana
Chisinau
Prison no. 13
03/02/2006 to
14/03/2006
1 month(s) and 12 day(s)
Prison no. 1
15/03/2006 to
08/08/2006
4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Prison no. 13
09/08/2006 to
28/05/2007
9 month(s) and 20 day(s)
Prison no. 1
29/05/2007 to
25/02/2008
8 month(s) and 28 day(s)
Prison no. 3
19/09/2008 to
27/09/2008
9 day(s)
Prison no. 1
28/09/2008 to
28/02/2010
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)
Prison no. 1
05/10/2010 to
07/11/2010
1 month(s) and 3 day(s)
Prison no. 13
08/11/2010 to
20/01/2011
2 month(s) and 13 day(s)
Prison no. 1
21/01/2011 to
28/01/2011
8 day(s)
Prison no. 13
08/03/2011 to
18/03/2011
11 day(s)
Prison no. 1
09/03/2012 to
14/03/2012
6 day(s)
Prison no. 13
15/03/2012 to
25/06/2015
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)
1.5 m²
1.5 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (adequate) heating
poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (adequate) heating
overcrowding, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food
overcrowding, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food
14,100
800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy