FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GRUESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 35141/16 and 9 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gruescu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
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 LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They 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.”
7. In applications nos. 42833/16, 59124/16 and 3278/19, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the loss of victim status by the applicants 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 afore-mentioned 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 applications nos. 42833/16, 59124/16 and 3278/19 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.
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, §§ 122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 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 (including its findings in the case of Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In applications nos. 42833/16, 59124/16 and 3278/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.
16. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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.”
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 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 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 for the periods specified in the appended table below;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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
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]
35141/16
13/07/2016
Vasile-Cosmin GRUESCU
1977
Târgu-Jiu Prison
30/03/2015 to
01/11/2016
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 3 day(s)
1.27-2.65 m²
overcrowding (save for 30/03/2015-14/04/2015), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
37924/16
21/10/2016
Constantin-Petru VODĂ
1979
Miercurea Ciuc and Codlea Prisons
11/01/2016 to
13/09/2017
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)
1.64-2.9 m²
overcrowding (save for 30/06/2017-22/08/2017), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
42833/16
15/11/2016
Vasile CHIRA
1969
Peter Irina Maria
Bucharest
Giurgiu Prison
26/06/2012 to
23/07/2012
28 day(s)
2.5 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food
528 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 until 22/12/2019.
1,000
59124/16
16/12/2016
Vasile BADEA
1963
Poarta Albă, Poarta Albă – Valul lui Traian and Giurgiu Prisons
23/12/2019
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)
1.89-2.82 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 until 22/12/2019.
3,000
4487/18
20/02/2018
Vasile STAHIE
1972
Rahova, Jilava, Găeşti and Giurgiu Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital
14/01/2014 to
30/09/2017
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)
1.38--2.81 m²
overcrowding (save for 07/10/2015-09/10/2015, 09/11/2016-07/02/2017, 06/04/2017-30/09/2017), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature
3,000
3278/19
12/03/2019
Ion AGÎȚEI ARHIP
1980
Bacău, Vaslui and Botoşani Prisons
19 periods between 02/03/2018 and 13/11/2019 for a total length of 106 days
Vaslui Prison
23/12/2019 to
10/01/2020
19 day(s)
Vaslui Prison
28/01/2020 to
01/02/2020
5 day(s)
Vaslui and Bacău Prisons
18/02/2020 to
03/07/2020
4 month(s) and 16 day(s)
Vaslui Prison
28/02/2022
pending
More than 8 month(s) and 22 day(s)
1.53-2.86 m²
overcrowding (save for 2-5/03/2018, 13-16/04/2018, 11-14/05/2018, 30/05/2018-04/06/2018, 15-18/06/2018, 28/06/2018-02/07/2018, 3-6/08/2018, 7-10/09/2018, 28/09/2018-02/10/2018, 26-30/10/2018, 08-12/11/2019, 21-25/02/2020, 19-25/03/2020), inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
210 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/09/2016 until 22/12/2019, with the exception of the periods mentioned in column no. 5.
3,000
7570/20
30/04/2020
Raul-Andrei NAGY
1997
Satu-Mare Police; Oradea and Satu-Mare Prisons
03/07/2019
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s)
2.01-2.89 m²
overcrowding (save for 03/07/2019-09/12/2019), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
30316/20
18/08/2020
Iulian BRATU
1975
Focşani Prison
23/12/2019
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)
2.01-2.56 m²
overcrowding (save for 17/12/2020-02/02/2021), lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
33271/20
27/07/2020
Marius Cezar ŞUŢĂ
1974
Jilava Prison
23/12/2019 to
13/01/2021
1 year(s) and 22 day(s)
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water
3,000
39132/20
28/09/2020
Viorel MĂRGĂRIT
1968
Ploieşti and Găeşti Prisons
23/12/2019
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)
2.54-2.92 m²
overcrowding (save for 23/12/2019-07/07/2020), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.