FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PAVEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 11950/16 and 10 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavel 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 19 November 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 of the 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 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 applications nos. 14450/16 and 25966/16 the Government claimed that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
8. The Court observes that in application no. 14450/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Codlea Prison ended on 18 July 2006 when he was transferred to another prison facility in respect of which he did not complain. He came back to Codlea Prison in November 2006 (see appended table). The application was lodged with the Court on 12 April 2016, that is more than six months after the end of the first period of his detention in Codlea Prison in 2006.
9. As regards application no. 25966/16, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in several detention facilities, which ended on 29 January 2010 with his transfer to another facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 5 September 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.
10. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 14450/16 and 25966/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
11. The Government also argued that all applicants had lost their victim status for periods of detention specified in the appended table because they had been afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those respective periods of detention.
12. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was found 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 present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison.
13. 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.
14. 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 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. 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.
20. 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 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
11950/16
18/04/2016
Ionel PAVEL
1983
Vaslui County Police Station, Iași and Rahova Prisons
27/05/2010 to
24/07/2012
2 years and 1 month and 28 days
1.3 – 2.8 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, inadequate recreational space
390 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 28/12/2017
3,000
13871/16
05/04/2016
Ion-Marian OANĂ
1980
Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 5, Bucharest Central Arrest, Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu Gherla and Slobozia Prisons
29/12/2005 to
24/07/2012
6 years and 6 months and 26 days
1.4 – 2.9 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, no individual bed, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
378 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 19/10/2017
5,000
14450/16
12/04/2016
Zsigmond MOȚOC
1978
Codlea, Mărgineni, Gherla, Miercurea Ciuc and Aiud Prisons
21/11/2006 to
24/07/2012
5 years and 8 months and 4 days
1.5 - 2 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
456 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 31/10/2018
5,000
15243/16
07/04/2016
Mitică ȘTEFAN
1964
Galaţi Prison
09/05/2012 to
24/07/2012
2 months and 16 days
1.6 – 1.8 m²
overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
390 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 28/12/2017
1,000
18276/16
31/05/2016
Aurel ŞOŞU
1969
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Bacău County Police Station, Bacău, Jilava, Poarta Alba and Focşani Prisons
14/10/2004 to
24/07/2012
7 years and 9 months and 11 days
0.9 - 1.7 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower
378 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 21/11/2017
5,000
18397/16
26/04/2016
Florentin ZAHARIA
1979
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Bucharest Central Arrest and Rahova Prison
13/03/2011 to
24/07/2012
1 year and 4 months and 12 days
1.8 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding (save for the period 27/04/2015 – 27/08/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
432 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 18/09/2018
3,000
24900/16
25/05/2016
Ionel VOLCINSCHI
1971
Jilava, Botoşani, Galaţi Prisons
21/11/2001 to
24/07/2012
10 years and 8 months and 4 days
1 - 2.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light
408 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 27/03/2018
5,000
25960/16
23/11/2016
Neculai-Colea SURUCEANU
1976
Vasile Rareș Biro
Satu Mare
Iaşi County Police Station, Bacău County Police Station, Iaşi, Bacău and Tulcea Prisons
08/01/2007 to
24/07/2012
5 years and 6 months and 17 days
1 - 2 m²
overcrowding
396 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 22/01/2019
5,000
25966/16
05/09/2016
Ioan BANTA
1976
Vasile Rareș Biro
Satu Mare
Satu Mare, Baia Mare, Gherla, Oradea Prisons
13/05/2010 to
24/07/2012
2 years and 2 months and 12 days
1.3 - 2.5 m²
overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, inadequate temperature
468 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 21/02/2019
3,000
34671/16
20/07/2016
Gheorghe GHILEAN
1958
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Hunedoara County Police Station, Aiud, Gherla Prisons and Dej Prison Hospital
02/03/2005 to
24/07/2012
7 years and 4 months and 23 days
1.5 - 2.8 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, inadequate temperature
372 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 10/07/2018
5,000
49875/16
27/02/2017
Gheorghe PETRE
1984
Pavel Abraham
Bucharest
Bucharest police detention facility no. 9, Mărgineni, Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons
05/11/2008 to
24/07/2012
3 years and 8 months and 20 days
0.9 - 2.25 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light
378 days in compensation
for a total period of
detention spent in
inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 14/11/2017
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy