CASE OF PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 21061/11)

This version was rectified on 2 June 2015

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 March 2015

FINAL

03/06/2015

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Pisaroglu v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Ján Šikuta,
Dragoljub Popović,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 21061/11) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Ms Natalia Pisaroglu (“the applicant”), on 15 March 2011.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Rahlea, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

3. The applicant alleged, in particular, a breach of her rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention on account of her detention in inhuman and degrading conditions.

4. On 20 November 2013 the complaint concerning Article 3 was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Chişinău.

6. The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2010 on charges of trafficking in human beings and held in detention on remand in Prison No. 13 in Chișinău until 15 March 2011.[1] According to her, the conditions of detention were very poor. In particular, the applicant alleged that the cells were overcrowded, dirty and cold, with no access to daylight or fresh air, no bedding, very poor quality food, showers only once a week, only cold water, and clothes had to be washed and dried in the cell.

II. RELEVANT MATERIAL

7. The relevant parts of the Special Rapporteur’s report on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment compiled following his visit to Moldova from 4 to 11 July 2008 (The United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009) read:

“B. Conditions in places of detention

Institutions under the Ministry of Justice

30. Undoubtedly, progress has been achieved in improving conditions of detention. However, some of the institutions visited by the Special Rapporteur were heavily overcrowded. The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix). The Special Rapporteur was informed of Government plans to close down this institution.

31. Common problems at all pre- and post-trial prisons are the poor hygienic conditions, restricted access to health care and lack of medication as well as risk of contamination with tuberculosis and other diseases. Whereas the Special Rapporteur notes that the minimum norms regarding nutrition of detainees (Government Decision no. 609 of 29 May 2006) are checked on a daily basis and that, according to the financial plan of the Penitentiary Department, the food budget for 2008 had almost doubled in comparison to 2004 and is set to rise further, he also received consistent allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food. ...”

15. In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that:

“Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.”

8. In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that:

“Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.”

9. In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. – “Conditions of detention”) the Human Rights Centre found, inter alia, that:

“Failure to adhere to the statutory cell size (4 square metres per person) in the living blocks of the institution has become an unpleasant problem which now affects the prison system across the entire country. ...

The same situation was confirmed during a visit to Chişinău Prison no. 13 in on 9 September 2010. In some cells the living space was not proportionate to the number of detainees. During the visit, eight detainees were being held in cell no. 38, which measured 24 square metres. This situation has been seen repeatedly during visits by the Centre’s staff to the Chişinău Pre-trial Detention Centre. Similar findings were made during visits to Rusca Prison no. 7 on 19 May 2010, where six detainees were being held in a cell measuring 15.5 square metres and to Cricova Prison no. 4, where (in living block no. 7) over twenty detainees were being held in a cell measuring 65 square metres.

Overcrowding comes directly within the Ombudsman’s remit as part of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture, which on many occasions has recognised overcrowding in the country’s prisons. ...

... [T]he Prisons Department informed the Ombudsman that meat and fish products are provided [to detainees] whenever possible. At the same time, the authority stated that, owing to the difficult financial situation, during 2010 the detainees in Rezina Prison no. 17 received only 75% and 80% of their normal quotas of meat and fish products respectively. In this connection, the Minister of Justice provided information to the Ombudsman about the expenditure on prisoners’ food in 2010. The cost amounted to MDL 24.05 million, whereas the budgetary need for the same year was, according to the Ministry of Finance’s draft budget, MDL 29.05 million. The daily cost of feeding a detainee in 2010 was MDL 10.24, whilst the daily budgetary need was MDL 12.35. This statistic was often cited by prison authorities to justify why they were unable to provide detainees with meat and fish.

...

As regards sanitary conditions, lighting and ventilation problems continue to exist in the majority of living blocks in Moldovan prisons, with the exception of Taraclia Prisons no. 1 and Rusca Prison no. 7.

The Republic of Moldova inherited old gulag-type prisons in dilapidated buildings, corresponding to former Soviet standards. The prisons do not conform to current national and international standards; however, the budget constraints upon the State do not allow for their reconstruction or renovation.

In the prisons, with the exception of Taraclia Prison no. 1, detainees are held in large-capacity cells insufficiently equipped for their daily needs, namely areas for sleeping, for everyday living and for sanitary equipment. Detainees are held in extremely overcrowded, dark, damp and unventilated spaces full of cigarette smoke. In certain prisons the bunk beds essentially prevent daylight from reaching the living space.”

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of her detention in Prison no. 13. Article 3 reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. Admissibility

11. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of her complaint about poor conditions of detention. They pointed to case-law of the Supreme Court under which compensation for poor conditions of detention may be awarded to persons who have been released from such detention.

12. The applicant argued that she had no effective remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

13. The Court reiterates that it has examined on numerous occasions the issue of domestic remedies in respect of poor conditions of detention in Moldova (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, §§ 101-107, 7 November 2006; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 38, 27 March 2007; Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, § 47, 10 May 2007; and Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 46, 6 November 2007), and has concluded on each occasion that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in respect of individuals currently held in detention because they did not offer a possibility of putting an end to their detention in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Malai v. Moldova (no. 7101/06, §§ 42-46, 13 November 2008), it found that “it has not been shown that effective remedies existed in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3” concerning conditions of detention. Since the case-law of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Government is similar to that cited by them in the above-mentioned cases, the Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.

14. The Court finds, therefore, that the complaint cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and accordingly the Government’s objection must be dismissed. It also notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

15. The applicant submitted that the conditions of detention in Prison No. 13 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

16. The Government submitted that the conditions of detention in Prison No. 13 did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and argued that the conditions in that prison have considerably improved since the Court found them to be contrary to Article 3.

17. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning conditions of detention set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, §§ 76‑79, 13 September 2005).

18. The Court notes that the poor conditions of detention in this particular detention facility were established for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of the United Nations and by the Moldovan Ombudsperson (see paragraphs 9-11 above). The Government adduced no evidence in support of their submission to the effect that considerable improvements in Prison No. 13 had taken place during recent years. In such circumstances, the Court considers that there are no reasons to depart from the conclusions reached in Hadji v. Moldova (nos. 32844/07 and 41378/07, § 20, 14 February 2012). The Court thus considers that the hardship endured by the applicant during her detention between July 2010 and July 2014 went beyond the unavoidable level of hardship inherent in detention and reached a threshold of severity contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19. 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.”

A. Damage

20. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage suffered as a result of her detention in inhuman and degrading conditions.

21. The Government submitted that amount claimed by the applicant was excessively high.

22. The Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards her EUR 3,000.

B. Costs and expenses

23. The applicant also claimed EUR 207 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

24. The Government contested the amount claimed by the applicant and argued that it was excessive.

25. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the entire amount claimed.

C. Default interest

26. 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,

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 207 (two hundred and seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 March 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

              Stephen PhillipsJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident

[1]. Rectified on 2 June 2015: the text initial text was “The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2010 on charges of trafficking in human beings and placed in detention on remand. At the time of submitting her final observations in the case, i.e. on 18 July 2014, the applicant was still detained in Prison No. 13 in Chişinău where, according to her, the conditions of detention were very poor.”

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy