FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF IORGA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 1460/15 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 June 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Iorga 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021,
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 inadequate conditions of their detention.
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 that they had been detained in inadequate conditions. 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 application no. 59934/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicant’s loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because she was 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 applicant in the application no. 59934/16 and she was, 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 this part of application no. 59934/16 regarding the period from 18 September 2014 to 7 November 2017 is 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 were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 1460/15, 60454/15, 1872/16, 17949/16 and 18442/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including in relation to the periods of detention 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 Article 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 these parts of applications nos. 1460/15, 60454/15, 1872/16, 17949/16 and 18442/16 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 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaArmen 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]
1460/15
16/03/2015
Mihai Ionel IORGA
1984
Gherla and Giurgiu Prisons
07/03/2014 to 02/03/2015
11 months and 24 days
1.81 - 2.72 m²
overcrowding
1,000
52590/15
15/12/2015
Florin-Claudiu HERETEK
1969
Craiova, Drobeta Turnu Severin, Pelendava, Aiud, Baia-Mare and Târgu-Jiu Prisons
16/02/2011 to 27/10/2015
4 years and 8 months and 12 days
0.6 - 1.11 m²
overcrowding (save for Craiova, Drobeta Turnu Severin and Pelendava Prisons), bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
60454/15
29/12/2015
Ventel TOTH
1968
Augustin-Viorel Ţigan
Ceica
Satu-Mare Prison
20/08/2015 to 11/10/2016
1 year and 1 month and 22 days
1.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food
3,000
1697/16
04/02/2016
Gabriel-Nicolae FERICEAN
1973
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Arad County Police Station, Arad, Târgu Jiu, Timișoara and Bistrița Prisons
18/04/2011 to 16/12/2015
4 years and 7 months and 29 days
1.1 - 2 m²
overcrowding (save for Arad County Police Station and Arad Prison and for the periods from 13-16/01/2014 and from 04/03/2015 - 21/05/2015),
lack of sanitary facilities in the cell (Arad County Police Station), poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
1872/16
28/11/2015
Mircea SUCIU
1958
Poarta Albă Prison
15/05/2015 to 03/10/2016
1 year and 4 months and 19 days
1.12 - 1.65 m²
overcrowding, limited access to running water, poor hygiene conditions, cell infested with insects, lack of furniture
3,000
2669/16
16/03/2016
Constantin PRIHOANCĂ
1978
Iași and Vaslui Prisons
07/04/2015 to
28/12/2016
1 year and 8 months and 22 days
1.1 - 1.99 m²
overcrowding (save for 09/01/2016 - 28/12/2016),
bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
3,000
17949/16
12/05/2016
Mihai PRICOP
1965
Jilava Prison Hospital, Vaslui, Bistrița and Bârcea Mare Prisons
25/09/2015 to 17/08/2017
1 year and 10 months and 24 days
0.3 - 1.9 m²
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower
3,000
18442/16
22/06/2016
Ion-Daniel BAN
1967
Colibași Prison Hospital, Jilava, Colibași, Drobeta Turnu Severin and Găești Prisons
02/11/2005 to 06/09/2017
11 years and 10 months and 5 days
2.4 - 2.7 m²
overcrowding (save for Colibași Prison Hospital and for the periods from 09/12/2013 - 24/11/2014 and from 26/11/2015 - 19/01/2017),
insufficient sanitary facilities, insects, inadequate heating during winter and ventilation during summer, poor quality of food, lack of furniture, lack of potable water, small courtyards
5,000
59934/16
07/10/2016
Marian BALABAN
1989
Ionela Mărgărit
Bucharest
Galati County Police Station
21/08/2014 to 18/09/2014
29 days
2.4 m²
overcrowding
228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 18/09/2014 to 07/11/2017
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy