FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ROŞU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 40112/16 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Roşu 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 2 February 2023,
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. In application no. 9488/17, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status by the applicant for the period of detention specified in the appended table because he was afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for that specific period 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 application no. 9488/17, and he 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 these parts of application no. 9488/17 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 remaining periods of the applicants’ detention in all applications, 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, §§ 122-41, 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 (including its findings in the case of Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined these complaints 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.
16. 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 CONVENTION17. 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.”
18. 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 for the periods specified in the appended table below;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 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
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]
40112/16
27/07/2016
Titi-Marian ROŞU
1981
Slobozia Prison
30/01/2012 to
23/07/2012
5 month(s) and 24 day(s)
1.96-2 m²
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/ rodents, poor quality of potable water, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell
1,000
50266/16
27/09/2016
Gheorghe PUŞCAŞIU
1955
Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc, Aiud, Târgu Mureș Prisons
28/07/2015 to
15/03/2017
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s)
1.82 -2.62 m²
overcrowding (save for certain periods), mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, deterioration in conditions of detention (cumulative effect of lack of physical exercise, breaches of hygiene regulations, lack of contact with the outside world)
3,000
57621/16
04/11/2016
Geamailă NICOLAE
1977
Jilava Prison
17/12/2008 to
07/02/2009
1 month(s) and 22 day(s)
1.73 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/ rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air
1,000
58713/16
07/12/2016
Daniel-Nicolae CSISZER
1985
Arad Prison
11/01/2016 to
10/02/2016
1 month(s)
-
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries
1,000
9488/17
06/03/2017
László AMBRUS
1988
Codlea Prison
7 periods during
13/12/2016 to 07/01/2018
3 month(s) and 7 day(s)
2.5 m²
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/ rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture
468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in
inadequate conditions,
including the period from 25/04/2014 to
18/04/2019 (except for the periods referred to in column no. 5)
1,000
21518/17
13/03/2017
Gheorghe BISERICARU
1969
Vâlcea County Police Station; Mioveni (Colibași) and Jilava Prisons
27/02/2004 to
07/12/2006
2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Mioveni (Colibași) Prison
14/12/2006 to
01/02/2007
1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
Mioveni (Colibași) Prison
08/02/2007 to
28/03/2011
4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)
Mioveni (Colibași) and Târgu Jiu Prisons
02/04/2011 to
24/01/2012
9 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Târgu Jiu and Mioveni (Colibași) Prisons
17/02/2016 to
21/11/2016
9 month(s) and 5 day(s))
0.47 -2.57 m²
overcrowding (save for certain rather scattered periods), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water
5,000
5808/18
22/01/2018
Claudiu-Gheorghe CĂPRICEANU
1978
Trif Nicoleta
Arad
Arad Prison
27/07/2016 to
18/12/2016
4 month(s) and 22 day(s)
-
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to toilet, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, inadequate temperature
1,000
16896/18
03/04/2018
Alexandru POPOVICI
1987
Galaţi County Police Station; Galaţi and Brăila Prisons
15/01/2015 to
03/10/2017
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)
1.12 -2.45 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.