FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SAVA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 57351/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 July 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sava 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 1 July 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 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. The Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status by some of 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 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 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.
10. 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).
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, for the periods specified in the appended table, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 57351/16, 63436/16, 64478/16, 6381/17 and 6604/17, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
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 do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
It follows that these parts of above-mentioned applications 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 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 22 July 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]
57351/16
09/11/2016
Cătălin-Iulian SAVA
1979
Arad Prison
25/01/2016 to
22/12/2016
10 months and 28 days
Arad Prison
29/12/2016
pending
More than 4 years and 5 months and 13 days
lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food
5,000
63436/16
12/12/2016
Marcel PETRICICĂ
1961
Drobeta Turnu Severin Prison
24/12/2019
pending
More than 1 year and 5 months and 18 days
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water
450 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019
3,000
64478/16
03/01/2017
Ioan-Petru ŞELARU
1973
Mioveni Prison Hospital and Deva, Aiud, Timișoara and Arad Prisons
09/07/2009 to
23/07/2012
3 years and 15 days
1,31-2,82 m²
overcrowding (save for 11/11/2010-18/11/2010: 24/01/2011-11/02/2011 and 01/11/2011-24/07/2012), no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, constant electric light
408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 20/03/2018
3,000
64635/16
19/04/2017
Ismail GYUNAY
1991
Giurgiu and Arad Prisons
27/05/2016
pending
More than 5 years and 16 days
2,3-2,8 m²
overcrowding while in Giurgiu Prison, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
5,000
6381/17
31/01/2017
Ioan-Marius CORNEA
1981
Aiud, Giurgiu, Mărgineni, Iași, Galați, Mioveni, Jilava, Rahova and Gherla Prisons
19/08/2004 to
23/07/2012
7 years and 11 months and 5 days
Mioveni Prison
21/08/2014 to
19/09/2014
30 days
Aiud Prison
18/12/2019 to
29/03/2020
3 months and 12 days
1,3-2,82 m²
overcrowding (save for 01/10/2008-10/03/2009, 23/06-27/06/2011; 28/11-05/12/2011; 27/02-30/03/2012 and 09/04-23/07/2012), mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food
396 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 17/12/2019, with the exception of the 21/08/2014 to 19/09/2014, period spent in Mioveni.
5,000
6604/17
03/01/2017
Nicuşor-Vlăduţ LENGHEL
1970
Vasile Rareş Biro
Satu Mare
Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons
12/04/2007 to
23/07/2012
5 years and 3 months and 12 days
1,65-2,54 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food
462 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 18/12/2018
5,000
29065/17
04/04/2017
Gheorghe HAMZA
1966
Cezara-Maria Nichita-Costescu
Timișoara
Arad Prisons
17/04/2014 to
08/09/2014
4 months and 23 days
Arad Prison
29/03/2017 to
24/07/2017
3 months and 26 days
1.24 m²
overcrowding for 29/03/2017-24/07/2017, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food
228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 31/03/2014 to 12/03/2018, except for the periods referred to in Column no. 5
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy