FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RĂDOI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 31590/15 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rădoi and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
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 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, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 14886/16, 16657/16, 38540/16 and 78584/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning 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 the 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 present applications, 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. 14886/16, 16657/16, 38540/16 and 78584/16 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 merits of the applications, the Court notes that, for the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention, 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 during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In applications nos. 31590/15, 14886/16, 16657/16, 17714/16, 38540/16 and 78584/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
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, for the periods 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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
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]
31590/15
22/12/2015
Sorin Daniel RĂDOI
1968
Timișoara, Arad and Bistrița Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital
21/09/2006 to
08/12/2015
9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 18 day(s)
2 - 2.5 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 21/09/2006-18/12/2008, 22/12/2008-09/03/2009, 16/03/2009-30/09/2010, 22/08/2014-15/09/2014, 23/10/2014-23/06/2015, 22/09/2015-12/10/2015, 27/10/2015-06/11/2015), insufficient number of sleeping places, constant electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
–
5,000
14886/16
29/08/2016
Florin MERGESCU
1961
Jilava Prison
23/12/2019 to
27/08/2020
8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
1.93 - 2.08 m²
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
366 days in compensation for a total period of 1,855 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 20/12/2014 – 22/12/2019.
1,000
16657/16
14/04/2016
Liviu IBRIȘ
1968
Poarta Albă Prison
23/12/2019 to
13/07/2020
6 month(s) and 21 day(s)
–
overcrowding, infestation of the cell with insects, poor conditions of hygiene, inadequate sanitary facilities
192 days in compensation for a total period of 965 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 21/01/2015-19/10/2017, and another 36 days in compensation for a total period of 202 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 31/05/2019-22/12/2019.
1,000
17714/16
06/06/2016
Tomiţă POLISCIUC
1965
Codlea Prison
08/09/2015 to
13/01/2016
4 month(s) and 6 day(s)
1.74 - 1.86 m²
overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, passive smoking, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
–
1,000
18175/16
23/08/2016
Daniel SARU
1979
Mărgineni, Ploiești, Găești Prisons.
20/05/2014 to
05/04/2016
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 17 day(s)
1.32 - 2.76 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 26/11/2015-05/04/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light
–
3,000
33073/16
28/07/2016
Daniel UNGUR
1970
Timişoara, Rahova and Arad Prisons
01/07/2011 to
07/10/2016
5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1,93 - 2,25 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 03/10/2012-05/10/2012 and 15/05/2014-20/04/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities etc.
–
5,000
33388/16
04/07/2016
Lali COŞMAN
1976
Drobeta Turnu Severin Prison
13/02/2015 to
02/08/2016
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 21 day(s)
1,48 - 2,38 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 13/02/2015-19/02/2015), no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of requisite medical assistance
–
3,000
38540/16
18/08/2016
Claudiu-Marian MĂNESCU
1977
Mioveni (Colibaşi) Prison
31/08/2005 to
23/07/2012
6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 24 day(s)
1,22 - 2,57 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 18/10/2011-20/04/2012), lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
384 days in compensation for a total period of 1936 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 16/11/2017
5,000
78584/16
06/12/2016
Vasile RADU
1986
Nichita-Costescu Cezara-Maria
Timișoara
Bacău, Jilava, Iași, Poarta Albă, Mărgineni and Arad Prisons
17/08/2006 to
23/07/2012
5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1.12-2.73 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 14/03/2007-03/04/2007, 30/07/2007-02/08/2007, 15/08/2007-26/08/2007, 17/10/2007-06/11/2007, 17/02/2009-09/03/2009, 09/08/2010-09/09/2010, 17/02/2011-01/03/2011, 06/10/2011-23/07/2012), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to running water
168 days in compensation for a total period of 871 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 03/11/2017.
5,000
34433/17
02/05/2017
Magdalena DRUIU
1955
Poarta Albă and Târgșor Prisons
30/04/2015 to
23/11/2016
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1.84 - 2.52 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 30/04/2015-02/07/2015), no or restricted access to warm water, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food
–
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.