FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MUNTEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 37741/14 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Munteanu 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 31 August 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.
4. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about 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.
7. In applications nos. 37741/14 and 25463/16, 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 applications nos. 37741/14 and 25463/16, 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. 37741/14 and 25463/16 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, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table below, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In applications nos. 37741/14, 15560/15, 7576/17, and 8943/17, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods.
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.
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 CONVENTION16. 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, 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 during the periods specified in the appended table admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 37741/14, 15560/15, 25463/16, 7576/17 and 8943/17 inadmissible;Holds that there has been 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 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
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]
37741/14
18/07/2014
Gheorghe
MUNTEANU
1971
Arad Prison
18/04/2013 to
21/05/2018
5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s)
-
poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
18 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 28/11/2012 and from 05/12/2012 to 11/02/2013
5,000
15560/15
22/04/2015
Florin
SĂNDULESCU
1982
Rahova Prison
30/07/2013 to
03/04/2014
8 months et 5 day(s)
1.96-2.05 m²
overcrowding (save for 31/01/2014-04/03/2014), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food,
1,000
34916/15
13/07/2015
Dănuţ
BĂLŢĂTESCU
1963
Bacău, Jilava, Rahova, Iași, Poarta Albă, Arad and Slobozia Prisons and Târgu Ocna, Colibași, Poarta Albă and Jilava Hospital Prisons
22/09/1998 to
23/07/2012
13 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2.12-2.77 m²
overcrowding (save for 16/03/2005-03/11/2008, 06/11/2008-20/01/2008 and 27/01/2009-26/02/2009), lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture
5,000
55093/15
09/12/2015
Adrian
DELEANU
1984
Peter Irina Maria
Bucharest
Bucharest Center for Detention under remand, Rahova and Jilava Prisons
16/11/2013 to
04/03/2016
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1.4-2.49 m²
overcrowding (save for 06/03/2014-04/09/2014), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
3,000
3281/16
30/12/2015
Igor
TANAŞCIUC
1972
Onuța Igor
Bucharest
Bucharest Police detention facilities no 1;
Rahova Prison
28/08/2014 to
30/05/2016
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 4 day(s)
1.64-2.44 m²
overcrowding (save for 17/03/2015-30/05/2016), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower
3,000
25463/16
28/06/2016
Arcadie
KASLER
1960
Peter Irina Maria
Bucharest
Hunedoara County Police Station
02/10/2014 to
28/10/2014
27 day(s)
2.5 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture
132 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 29/10/2014 to 24/10/2017
1,000
69495/16
20/02/2017
Dumitru
MORAR
1969
Biro Vasile Rareş
Satu Mare
Hunedoara County Police Station, Aiud, Baia Mare and Bârcea Mare (Deva) Prisons
28/01/2014 to
14/02/2017
3 year(s) and 18 day(s)
1.57-2.71 m²
overcrowding (save for 28/01/2014-27/02/2014, 27/03/2014-31/03/2014, 16/04/2014-26/05/2014, 15/02/2016-18/02/2016), lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food
3,000
2343/17
25/01/2017
Renato
COSTACHE
1975
Rahova and Vaslui Prisons
24/07/2015 to
28/12/2016
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)
1.8-2.45 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, 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
7576/17
03/01/2017
Daniel
DETEŞAN
1977
Biro Vasile Rareş
Satu Mare
Jilava, Aiud and Gherla Prisons
22/05/2008 to
23/07/2012
4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1.61-2.66 m²
overcrowding (save for 03/10/2008-17/10/2008), lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell
3,000
8943/17
17/01/2017
Nelu Valentin
NOGE
1975
Biro Vasile Rareş
Satu Mare
Gherla and Oradea Prisons
17/09/2010 to
23/07/2012
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1.55-2.17 m²
overcrowding (save for 11/01/2011-14/01/2011), lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
3,000
12432/17
18/01/2017
Stelică
TĂNASE
1967
Rahova, Jilava and Poarta Albă Prisons
28/11/2014 to
24/08/2016
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 28 day(s)
1.57-2.79 m²
overcrowding (save for 15/01/2015-20/01/2015 and 23/01/2015-09/11/2015), lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.