CASE OF GEANOPOL v. ROMANIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GEANOPOL v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 1777/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG 

5 March 2013

FINAL

05/06/2013

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Geanopol v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2013,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 1777/06) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Florin Nicolae Geanopol (“the applicant”), on 10 November 2005.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. The applicant complained, in particular, of the detention conditions in the solitary confinement cells in Rahova Prison where he was detained in 2005 and 2006. The applicant also alleged that on 27 January 2006 he had been subjected to ill-treatment at Rahova Prison by masked members of a special intervention unit (“mascaţi”), and that the investigation that followed was ineffective.

4. On 20 October 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

5. As Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), the President of the Chamber appointed Mrs Kristina Pardalos to sit as ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6. The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Iaşi Prison.

7. By a decision of 22 December 1997 the Suceava County Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment and ordered, as a safety measure, compulsory psychiatric treatment until he had fully recovered. Since 1985 the applicant had been periodically hospitalised at the “Socola” psychiatric hospital in Iaşi for different psychiatric conditions (a medical certificate was submitted in this connection). The decision of the County Court was upheld by the Suceava Court of Appeal on 1 July 1998 and became final on 18 December 1998 with a decision of the Supreme Court.

8. The applicant began serving his sentence in Iaşi Prison and was subsequently transferred to Botoşani, Craiova, Jilava, Rahova, Tulcea, Poarta Albă, Giurgiu and Arad Prisons, as well as to the Jilava, Rahova, Târgu Ocna and Poarta Albă Prison Hospitals.

A. The material conditions of detention in solitary confinement and the alleged ill-treatment in Rahova Prison

9. The parties disagree as to the detention conditions in Rahova Prison and whether the applicant was submitted or not to ill-treatment by prison staff.

1. The applicant’s account

10. The applicant was admitted to Rahova Prison on 9 December 2005 following a stay in Jilava Prison Hospital, where he had been kept under medical observation after a suicide attempt. This was not his first suicide attempt.

11. Upon arrival at Rahova Prison he was locked up in solitary confinement cell no. 200, which was used to punish detainees for breaching the internal regulations of the prison.

12. Cell no. 200 was described by the applicant as follows. The mattress and blanket were filthy, covered with human excrement and urine, stained with blood and full of lice, bedbugs and dust. The smell was unbearable. There was only one window, in which the glass was broken. The cold was extreme, yet he only had one layer of clothes until 28 December 2005, when he received a second set of clothes. Although he reported that the window was broken, the prison administration took no action. The cell had no hot water supply, the applicant could only take cold showers and there was no soap. He was not given toilet paper. As a result of the conditions of detention in cell no. 200, the applicant contracted scabies, developed pneumonia and suffered bites from lice and bedbugs which became infected. As evidence, the applicant sent to the Court a piece of the mattress, which is extremely dirty and blood‑stained. From 9 December to 28 December 2005, the applicant claims he did not eat or drink anything because he had not been given any crockery.

13. On 30 December 2005 the applicant was transported to the court in a metal cage with poor ventilation and in extremely cold conditions, despite the fact that he was very weak and unable to stand up. Upon return to Rahova Prison he was placed in a regular cell.

14. On 27 January 2006, as the result of a quarrel with another inmate, the applicant was brutally beaten by masked officers. He was then handcuffed and taken to the medical ward, where the nurse claimed the applicant showed no signs of having been subjected to violence. He was then taken back to solitary confinement, this time in cell no. 500.

15. The toilet in cell no. 500 was locked and the prison guards refused to allow the applicant to use it. In protest, on 30 January 2006 he swallowed 200 barbiturate pills which he had kept hidden. On the same day, he was transported to Floreasca Hospital. He returned to Rahova Prison after a few days and upon his return he was again placed in solitary confinement. The applicant did not indicate when he was taken back to a regular cell.

16. On 7 April 2006, after another quarrel with his cellmates, the applicant was placed in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure. He was placed in cell no. 300. Although this disciplinary measure was limited to five days, he remained in cell no. 300 until sometime in July or August 2006.

2. The Government’s account

17. The applicant was detained in Rahova Prison from 8 December 2005 to 6 September 2006. He was placed in solitary confinement from 8 to 30 December 2005 in cell no. 200, from 27 to 31 January 2006 in cell no. 500, and from 7 April 2004 to an unspecified date in cell no. 300.

18. According to the information provided by the National Prison Administration (NPA) and the director of Rahova Prison, the applicant was placed in cell no. 200 upon arrival at Rahova Prison because the other detainees refused to share a cell with him, and not as a disciplinary sanction. His placement in solitary confinement in cells nos. 500 and 300 was decided on because the applicant had been aggressive towards his fellow detainees and they had objected to his presence in the regular cells.

19. With regard to the detention conditions in cells nos. 200 and 500, they measured 10.875 square meters, had two beds and a window measuring 0.72 square meters. The cells were naturally ventilated, had a sink and a toilet, and cold water was always available. Hot water was only provided for two hours every week. Detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells and they were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration. The cells had cast iron radiators that were connected to the central heating system. During winter, the temperature in the rooms was 18 degrees Celsius and heating was available depending on the weather outside. Detainees were allowed daily walks of one to three hours’ in the prison yards. The eight prison yards each measured 262.5 square meters. Additionally, detainees were allowed to engage in sports activities twice a week.

20. According to the information provided by the director of Rahova Prison, in December 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with infected scabies (scabie suprainfectată) and was treated with sulphur ointment and antibiotics. According to the applicant’s medical file, on 16 January 2006 he was still complaining of pruritus and receiving medication for skin lesions.

21. With regard to the incident of 27 January 2006, the applicant had been sanctioned for causing a short circuit in his cell and for making death threats to fellow detainees. When he was informed that he would be transferred to solitary confinement cell no. 500, he protested violently and the members of the intervention unit handcuffed him. After 10 minutes, when he had calmed down, the handcuffs were removed and he was taken to the medical ward. The medical staff did not detect any traces of ill-treatment.

22. On 30 January 2006 the applicant was transported to Floreasca Hospital because he was feeling dizzy and claimed that he had swallowed several pills. According to the transfer note (bilet de transfer) issued by the hospital on the same day, the applicant was placed in intensive care in the toxicology unit, where he underwent specific medical procedures. The transfer note did not indicate any signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body. The applicant was transferred to Rahova Prison hospital. A copy of the medical file submitted by the Government included a handwritten note by the applicant stating that he had been informed of the hospital regulations and that he refused to be hospitalised in the prison hospital.

23. He consequently returned to solitary confinement cell no. 500 in Rahova Prison on the same day. On 31 January 2006, after another suicide attempt, he was examined by the prison medical staff, who noted that his state of health was good. The applicant received a disciplinary warning, but he was placed in a regular cell on the same day.

24. The Government did not indicate the exact duration of the applicant’s stay in cell no. 300 but insisted that this measure was of a temporary nature and it had been decided on because all the other detainees objected to the applicant’s presence in the regular cells.

B. The applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of detention and the alleged ill-treatment

25. With respect to the allegedly degrading conditions in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison, the applicant lodged several complaints, mainly with the NPA. He also sent similar complaints to the Romanian President, the Parliament, the Ministry of Justice and the Constitutional Court. These complaints were forwarded to the NPA.

26. In reply, on 17 December 2005 and 25 January 2006 the NPA informed the applicant that his rights had not been restricted as a result of the prison regime.

27. With regard to the incident of 27 January 2006, the applicant lodged criminal complaints with the Bucharest District Court and the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office. He complained against the prison director, V.L., who the applicant believed had ordered the beatings and the solitary confinement.

28. On 7 June 2006 the Bucharest District Court heard the applicant in the presence of a court-appointed lawyer. On the same day, the first-instance court referred the matter to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court.

29. On 26 June 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court referred the matter to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on account of the fact that V.L. was a magistrate.

30. On 6 July 2006 the prosecutor in charge of the file noted that the applicant had lodged several identical complaints and decided to join them together.

31. By a decision of 8 November 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaints on the ground that V.L. had not breached his professional code of conduct. It appears that the applicant received a copy of that decision on 28 November 2006. He did not contest it before the domestic courts.

32. Neither the applicant nor the Government provided the Court with any information on the outcome of the proceedings before the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office.

C. The right of petition and correspondence with the Court

33. On 8 November 2006, while detained in Botoşani Prison, the applicant sent a request to the prison administration for fifteen envelopes, together with stamps, to a total value of 15 Romanian lei, in order to correspond with the Court. Although he was given five envelopes, the applicant alleges that the combined value of the stamps was not enough to cover the cost of sending a letter to the Court. The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the authorities under Law no. 275/2006.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

34. Excerpts from the relevant provisions concerning the rights of detainees, Emergency Government Ordinance no. 56/2003 and Law no. 275/2006, are quoted in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§ 113‑116, 24 July 2012). More specifically, the provisions of Emergency Government Ordinance no. 56/2003 relating to the right of detainees to complain before a court are set out in Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, § 22, 29 April 2008).

35. Excerpts from the relevant parts of the General Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CPT”) are quoted in Iacov Stanciu (cited above, §§ 121-123).

36. In its reports of 2006 and 2010 regarding Romania, the CPT found that special intervention units wearing masks were dispatched to prisons in order to control violent and/or recalcitrant detainees. The CPT noted that the presence of such units creates an oppressive atmosphere and that the wearing of masks makes it difficult to identify a potential suspect, if and when an allegation of ill-treatment is made.

37. The CPT visited Rahova Prison in 2010 but its visit covered only the section for minors. However, a Romanian NGO, APADOR-CH (Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – “the Helsinki Committee”) visited the establishment on 12 November 2002 and 13 February 2009. In 2002, APADOR-CH found that Rahova Prison had three cells for solitary confinement and that all of them were in a poor state. None of them had natural light, and ventilation was only possible if the guards opened the door. All the cells had a concrete bed and a Turkish toilet that was not separated from the rest of the room. In 2009, according to their findings, there was only one cell for solitary confinement and it was in a poor condition, with water running from the ceiling.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

38. The applicant complained that his punishment by solitary confinement had been excessive and that the conditions in Rahova Prison’s solitary confinement cells were inhuman and degrading. He also alleged that on 27 January 2006 he had been beaten by members of a special intervention unit wearing masks, and that the investigation that followed had been ineffective. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

39. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant’s complaint has two parts: i) his placement in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison and the material conditions of detention in cells nos. 200 and 500; and ii) the alleged physical abuse on 27 January 2007 and the alleged lack of an effective investigation following that incident.

40. The Court will examine these two allegations separately.

A. Complaint concerning the placement in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison and the material conditions of detention

1. Admissibility

41. The Government inferred that the applicant had neither referred the matter to the judge in accordance with the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 and Law no. 275/2006, nor brought a civil action for damages.

42. The applicant did not submit any observation in this regard.

43. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it. However, the only remedies which Article 35 of the Convention requires to be used are those that relate to the alleged breaches and are available and sufficient. The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-75, ECHR 1999-IV).

44. In order for the exhaustion rule to come into operation, the effective remedy must exist at the date when the application is lodged with the Court. However, this rule is subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001 IX).

45. Turning to the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaint raises two issues: on the one hand, he claimed that his placement in solitary confinement was an excessive measure, and on the other hand, he alleged that the poor living conditions in solitary confinement cells nos. 200 and 500 violated Article 3 of the Convention.

46. The Court notes that Government Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 introduced the possibility of an appeal before the courts against any act of the prison authorities, and that it regulated the procedure to be followed and the possible outcome of the appeal (Petrea, cited above, § 35). More precisely, the Court has found that this remedy was specifically designed to provide direct redress for complaints that required immediate action by the authorities.

47. Therefore, a complaint based on the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 must be considered an effective remedy for specific, particular complaints where the courts can decide on an individual matter but that do not raise issues of a systemic nature. The Court has already found it to be an effective remedy for complaints such as lack of medical treatment and interference with the right to correspondence (see Petrea, cited above, § 35; Pavalache v. Romania, no. 38746/03, § 80, 18 October 2011; and Petrea Chisălău v. Romania, no. 36680/03, § 44, 26 June 2012).

48. With regard to the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison in December 2005 and January and April 2006, the Court takes the view that this measure imposed by the prison authorities, whether it was of a disciplinary nature or not, had an individual character. The applicant did not claim that it was a regular practice in the Romanian prison system or that it disclosed a problem of systemic nature. It was therefore in the applicant’s interest to lodge a complaint with the courts in order to allow the domestic authorities to assess the situation and to put an end to it as quickly as possible (see, mutatis mutandis, Petrea, cited above, § 35 in fine).

49. It follows that the part of the complaint relating to the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

50. With regard to the material conditions of detention in cells nos. 200 and 500, the Court observes that in recent applications against Romania concerning similar complaints it has found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, proceedings based on Government Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 or civil actions for damages did not constitute effective remedies (Ardelean v. Romania, no. 28766/04, § 44, 30 October 2012; Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 64930/09, § 30, 24 July 2012; and Iorgoiu v. Romania, no. 1831/02, § 59, 17 July 2012).

51. Moreover, in connection with a possible action based on the provisions of Law no. 275/2006, the Court notes that that law came into force on 23 July 2006, while the applicant’s complaint refers to an earlier time frame. At any rate, the Court notes that the domestic decisions submitted by the Government relate mostly to disciplinary proceedings and do not address structural issues such as poor hygiene or lack of sanitary facilities (see Fane Ciobanu v. Romania, no. 27240/03, § 59, 11 October 2011, and Petrea Chisălău, cited above, § 44).

52. The Court therefore concludes that those decisions do not demonstrate how the legal actions proposed by the Government could have afforded the applicant immediate and effective redress for the purposes of this part of his complaint (Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).

53. It therefore rejects the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies with regard to the material conditions of detention in solitary confinement in cells nos. 200 and 500.

54. Noting further that this part of the complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, the Court concludes that it must be declared admissible.

2. Merits

55. The applicant maintained his initial allegations.

56. The Government argued that the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement had been a measure taken to protect the applicant himself and the other detainees rather than a disciplinary sanction. The Government insisted that the applicant’s fellow detainees had objected to his presence in the regular cells because of his temper and psychiatric state. Referring to the cases of Rohde v. Denmark (no. 69332/01, § 98, 21 July 2005) and Ramirez Sanchez v. France ([GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 134‑135, ECHR 2006‑IX), they further argued that the applicant’s stay in solitary confinement had been only a temporary and ad hoc measure that did not breach the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.

57. In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant complains of the material conditions of his detention in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison for a period of twenty-three days in cell no. 200 (from 8 to 30 December 2005), and for a period of five days in cell no. 500 (from 27 to 31 January 2006). The Court will base its analysis on these periods (see X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, § 38 in fine, 9 October 2012).

58. With regard to the general principles governing the right of prisoners to detention conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, the Court has already emphasised in previous cases that people in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them. Under Article 3 the State must ensure that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject the person to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well‑being are adequately secured (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001‑VIII, and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). When assessing conditions of detention, their cumulative effects as well as the applicant’s specific allegations must be considered (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001‑II).

59. More specifically, in cases of solitary confinement it is rather the proportionality of this measure and the conditions of the confinement which may be questionable under Article 3 (Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 82, 27 January 2009).

60. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained of the poor living conditions in solitary confinement. More specifically, he complained that cells nos. 200 and 500 were dirty, especially the mattresses and the bed linen, and of the presence of parasites, of lack of hygiene and of poor sanitary conditions, as well as of the cold temperature in December 2005. He also complained that in January 2006 the toilet door in cell no. 500 had been kept locked and that prison staff had not allowed him to use it. The Government did not explicitly contradict these allegations.

61. The Court notes that, in addition to overcrowding, other aspects of the physical conditions of detention are relevant for its assessment of compliance with Article 3 (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; and Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 169). The Court has found that the following conditions of detention raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention: lack of appropriate furniture in the cells; poor sanitary facilities, such as a limited number of toilets and sinks for a large number of detainees; toilets in cells with no water supply; sinks in cells providing only cold water for a wide range of needs (personal hygiene, washing clothing and personal objects, cleaning the toilets); limited access to showers providing hot water; poor sanitary conditions in general, including the presence of cockroaches, rats, lice and bedbugs; worn-out mattresses and bed linen; and poor quality food (Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 175).

62. The Court further notes that the applicant gave a detailed and coherent description of the material conditions in cells nos. 200 and 500. Even though there are no relevant CPT reports concerning Rahova Prison, the Court has recently analysed the material conditions of detention in this prison for periods of time which overlap with the period in which the applicant was detained there (see Goh v. Romania, no. 9643/03, § 63, 21 June 2011; Răcăreanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Dimakos v. Romania, no. 10675/03, §§ 45-50, 6 July 2010). In these judgments, the Court concluded that the applicants had been deprived of the possibility of maintaining adequate bodily hygiene in prison.

63. Moreover, in the present case, the Government admitted that in December 2005 the applicant contracted scabies and that in January 2006 he was still suffering from skin lesions (see paragraph 20 above).

64. The Court cannot but conclude that the applicant in the instant case was subjected to unsatisfactory sanitary conditions, and deprived of the possibility of maintaining adequate personal hygiene.

65. The Court takes the view that the applicant’s state of health made him vulnerable and that his detention in such conditions must have aggravated to a certain extent his feelings of distress and suffering (see, mutatis mutandis, Sławomir Musiał v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 95, 20 January 2009). In similar cases, the Court has reached a conclusion of violation of Article 3 regardless of the briefness of the detention, on account that the conditions were particularly poor, not to say plainly inadequate (four and ten days in Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, §§ 93-95, 10 December 2009, and five days in Gavrilovici v. Moldova, no. 25464/05, §§ 30 et 43, 15 December 2009, and Ciupercescu (no. 2), cited above, § 46).

66. Even though in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court concludes that the conditions of his detention in cells nos. 200 and 500 caused him suffering that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that attained the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3.

67. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

B. Complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment on 27 January 2006 and the alleged lack of an effective investigation

Admissibility

68. The Government argued that the applicant neither submitted evidence to substantiate his allegations of ill-treatment, nor made a specific complaint against the intervention unit members. They claimed that if he could not identify them because they were wearing masks, the applicant could nonetheless have lodged a criminal complaint, giving the State authorities the relevant information and asking for them to be identified. The Government added that the applicant could have used the appeal provided for in Article 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to challenge the prosecutor’s decision of 8 November 2006 not to press charges against the director of the prison.

69. The applicant did not submit any observations.

70. In the instant case, it is undisputed that on 27 January 2006 the applicant was under the authority of the State. It is, however, disputed that he was subjected to ill-treatment by State agents on that occasion.

71. While it recognises the difficulty for detained people to obtain evidence of ill-treatment during detention, the Court notes that the applicant did not submit a medical report or any other evidence to substantiate his allegations of ill-treatment.

72. Moreover, the Court observes that Article 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a prosecutor’s decisions can be challenged before the domestic courts and that it has previously found this remedy to be effective (see Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 109, 4 March 2008, and Chiriţă v. Romania, no. 37147/02, § 99, 29 September 2009).

73. In the instant case the applicant failed to challenge the prosecutor’s decision of 8 November 2006. The Court notes that the applicant did not cite any objective impediment that prevented him from lodging a complaint with the courts although he had had access to legal counselling from a lawyer appointed by the court since the initial stage of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 28). More specifically, he did not claim that he had not been aware of the possibility of challenging that decision before the domestic courts, or that he had not received a copy of it (see, a contrario, Chiriţă, cited above, § 102).

74. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

75. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention that his right of individual petition and his right to respect for his correspondence had been violated.

76. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

77. 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.”

A. Damage

78. The applicant claimed 20,000,000 Euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

79. The Government argued that there was no causal link between the alleged violations and the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant, and that the requested amount was not in line with the Court’s case-law.

80. On the basis of its case-law in the matter, the Court awards the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the violation of his Article 3 rights.

B. Costs and expenses

81. The applicant did not submit any claim for costs and expenses.

C. Default interest

82. 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. Declares the complaint concerning the material conditions of detention in cells nos. 200 and 500 in Rahova Prison admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of detention in cells nos. 200 and 500 in Rahova Prison;

3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, 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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy