FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF NEGHINĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 37620/15 and 10 others
– see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Neghină and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,
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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention. In several applications the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER 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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. In all applications, except for application no. 41368/15, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status 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 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 applications concerned 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 the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
10. Turning to the 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 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 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 during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 41368/15, 43353/15, 44659/15, 52355/15, 56086/15, 58981/15 and 4238/16 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including relating to the conditions of their detention during periods preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
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 CONVENTION
16. 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 v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
18. 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as 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;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 January 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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 domestically
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
37620/15
31/08/2015
Vasile NEGHINĂ
1964
Aiud, Miercurea Ciuc, Arad, Mărgineni and Codlea Prisons
26/02/2008 to
23/07/2012
4 years and 4 months and 28 days
1.4-2.9 m²
overcrowding (save for the period of 24/02-13/03/2009), poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water
378 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-15/11/2017
3,000
41368/15
22/06/2016
Constantin DRAGOMIR
1974
Bucharest Police detention facility no. 6, Rahova and Jilava Prisons
01/09/2013 to
26/07/2017
3 years and 10 months and 26 days
1-2.5 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods of 10/09-01/10/2013, 29/10-17/11/2015 and 11/03/2016-26/07/2017), mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water
-
3,000
43353/15
09/11/2015
Ionuţ-Mihai GODINĂ
1981
Aiud and Mărgineni Prisons
06/08/2008 to
23/07/2012
3 years and 11 months and 18 days
1-2.6 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-10/01/2018
3,000
44659/15
29/02/2016
Puiu-Petru DĂNILĂ
1969
Târgu Ocna and Jilava Prison Hospitals, Bacău, Rahova and Iași Prisons
21/01/2009 to
23/07/2012
3 years and 6 months and 3 days
Iași Prison
18/12/2017 to
01/01/2018
15 days
1.1-2.7 m²
0.74 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods of 16/06-28/08/2009, 01-11/04/2011 and 02/09/2011-26/06/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-18/12/2017
3,000
45432/15
12/10/2015
Leon ZANFIR
1976
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Police, Jilava, Poarta Albă and Mioveni Prison Hospitals, Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu, Poarta Albă and Mioveni Prisons
22/04/1996 to
23/07/2012
16 years and 3 months and 2 days
1.9-2.8 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods of 01/09-15/10/2010, 20-27/06/2012, 02-19/07/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
450 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-06/11/2018
5,000
52355/15
09/12/2015
Adrian MÂNGÂȚĂ
1985
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Jilava, Rahova, Mărgineni, Miercurea Ciuc, Focșani and Ploiești Prisons
27/01/2007 to
23/07/2012
5 years and 5 months and 27 days
0.8-2.5 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, bunk beds
438 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-14/08/2018
5,000
52965/15
29/02/2016
Polifranc MIHAI
1976
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Ilfov, Argeș and Teleorman County Police, Bucharest Central Arrest, Colibași, Slobozia, Jilava, Focșani, Poarta Albă, Giurgiu, Tulcea, Codlea, Rahova, Mărgineni and Craiova Prisons
21/04/2000 to
23/07/2012
12 years and 3 months and 3 days
0.6-2 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, small courtyards
378 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-23/10/2017
5,000
52967/15
18/11/2015
Lucian MERARU
1975
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
28/01/2012 to
23/07/2012
5 months and 26 days
1.4 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, small courtyard
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-20/12/2017
1,000
56086/15
28/12/2015
Dorin ALBU
1968
Galați Prison
22/07/2011 to
23/07/2012
1 year and 2 days
1.2 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-19/12/2017
3,000
58981/15
09/03/2016
Ionel-Florentin GHEORGHIU
1969
Neamț County Police
04/07/2012 to
23/07/2012
20 days
1.3-2.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
372 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-07/12/2017
1,000
4238/16
25/03/2016
Balazs SZIBLIK
1967
Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons
18/10/2002 to
23/07/2012
9 years and 9 months and 6 days
1.20 - 1.60 m²
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food
456 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-05/11/2018
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy