FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GRAŢIAN REZMIVEŞ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 26421/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Graţian Rezmiveş and Others 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 14 December 2023,
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.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. 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 CONVENTION5. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
6. As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 34068/16 and 70436/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of the victim status by the applicants for certain 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.
7. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the 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 abovementioned applicants, and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).
8. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that certain parts of applications nos. 34068/16 and 70436/16 (see for the relevant
details the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
9. Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention the details of which are indicated in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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 during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. In applications nos. 26421/16, 46287/16 and 70436/16, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during other periods. Furthermore, in applications nos. 26421/16, 36794/16 and 45910/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.
14. 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 Articles 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.
15. It follows that these parts of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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 sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, for the periods indicated in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table;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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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 by national authorities
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
26421/16
25/07/2016
Grațian
REZMIVEȘ
1976
Ilie Pop
Cluj‑Napoca
Arad,
Deva (Bârcea Mare) and Satu Mare Prisons
21/11/2014 to
08/02/2017
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 19 day(s)
1.47- 2.90 m²
overcrowding (save for 21/11/2014 - 31/03/2015), bunk beds, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light
3,000
34068/16
26/08/2016
Nicu
LUPĂ
1984
Bucharest Police detention facilities nos. 5 and 6; Rahova Prison; Mioveni (Colibași), Rahova and Jilava Prison Hospitals
8 periods during
17/10/2011 and 17/08/2017
10 month(s) and 28 day(s)
2.44 -2.59 m²
overcrowding (only for 17/10/2011 - 29/02/2012; 29/03/2012 - 06/06/2012), mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions, during the period between 24/07/2012 - 10/03/2018, except for the periods indicated in column no. 5
1,000
36648/16
14/07/2016
Doru
MIHĂILESCU
1971
Olt County Police Station; Craiova and Drobeta‑Turnu Severin Prisons
04/01/2015 to
04/04/2017
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1.30 - 2.83 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower
3,000
36794/16
21/06/2016
Daniel
MUNTEANU
1967
Mioveni (Colibași) and Târgu Jiu Prisons
30/10/2014 to
23/10/2016
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)
1.21 - 1.94 m²
overcrowding (save for 30/10/2014 - 27/11/2014), lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food
3,000
45910/16
23/08/2016
Niculae
FENDU
1965
Prahova County Police Station; Ploiești, Rahova, Deva, Iași and Mărgineni Prisons; Jilava and Mioveni (Colibași) Prison Hospitals
30/01/2002 to
23/07/2012
10 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s)
1.25 - 2.13 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water
5,000
46287/16
20/09/2016
Alin
MARINESCU
1980
Arad Prison
01/04/2015 to
03/03/2016
10 month(s) and 27 day(s)
-
bunk beds, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
1,000
70436/16
09/02/2017
Irinel
SIMION
1979
Mioveni and Craiova Prisons
26/06/2020 to
25/11/2020
5 month(s)
2.10 - 2.17 m²
overcrowding (save for 26/09/2020 - 01/10/2020), poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions, during the period between 06/05/2014 - 23/12/2019 (except for the periods spent in prison hospitals about which he did not complain)
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.