FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF STAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 1382/18 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Stan and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 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 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 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. 19626/18, 33688/18, 5329/19, 15597/20, 22453/20 and 42575/20, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the loss of the victim status by the applicants for certain 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 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 above‑mentioned applicants, 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 certain parts of applications nos. 19626/18, 33688/18, 5329/19, 14180/20, 15597/20, 22453/20 and 42575/20 (see for the relevant details the appended table) 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. As regards the admissibility of all the applications, the Government argued that all the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at the domestic level, and invited the Court to declare these applications inadmissible.
11. The Court recalls that in Polgar v. Romania, (no. 39412/19, §§ 94‑96, 20 July 2021), it held that an action in tort, based on Articles 1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer, when they lodged their action, held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v. Romania, (dec.), no. 122/17, §§ 30-33, 15 November 2022).
12. However, all the applicants either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021 or continue to be held in such conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations.
13. Turning to those remaining periods of the applicants’ detention the details of which are indicated in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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 respective periods (see for further details appended table) were inadequate.
16. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
17. In applications nos. 1382/18, 33688/18, 5329/19, 60622/19 and 17529/20 and 22453/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
18. 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.
19. 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 CONVENTION
20. 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 there has been 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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]
1382/18
19/12/2017
Gigel STAN
1982
Arad Prison
13/04/2017 to
06/09/2018
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Arad Prison
17/09/2018 to
04/04/2019
6 month(s) and 19 day(s)
-
lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,000
19626/18
16/04/2018
Horia‑Ioan CHIVARI
1953
Chivari Gelu‑Ioan
Oradea
Oradea Prison
27/09/2016 to
11/11/2016
1 month(s) and 16 day(s)
Dej Prison Hospital
19/01/2017 to
10/02/2017
23 day(s)
Satu Mare Prison and Dej Prison Hospital
11/07/2017 to
13/12/2017
5 month(s) and 3 day(s)
1.49 - 2.5 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell
36 days in compensation for a total period of 189 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 23/09/2016 to 13/12/2017, except for the periods indicated in column no. 5
1,000
33688/18
09/07/2018
Ion PETROVICI
1972
Cândea Claudia Nadina Daciana
Timișoara
Arad Prison
30/03/2015 to
30/06/2016
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)
-
lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of toiletries
204 days in compensation for a total period of 1,042 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 20/01/2014 to 06/03/2018 in Timiș County Police Station and Timișoara Prison, except for the period 13/02/2014 - 20/02/2014 spent in infirmary
3,000
5329/19
19/02/2019
Gheorghe TOFAN
1966
Iași Prison
23/12/2019 to
07/09/2020
8 month(s) and 16 day(s)
2.12 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture
528 days in compensation for a total period of 2,640 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019, including all the periods spent in the detention facilities he complained of, except for the periods spent in prison hospitals and transit rooms
1,000
60622/19
03/04/2020
Mihály BARA
1985
Codlea and Găești Prisons
23/12/2019 to
20/02/2020
1 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Găești and Satu Mare Prisons
02/03/2020 to
05/06/2020
3 month(s) and 4 day(s)
2.03 - 2.72 m²
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding (save for the periods 12/02/2020 - 20/02/2020, 05/03/2020 - 09/03/2020)
1,000
15597/20
04/05/2020
Gheorghe PISTA
1973
Codlea Prison
29/11/2019 to
29/12/2020
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 1 day(s)
2.42 - 2.96 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food
6 days in compensation for a total period of 30 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 17/10/2019 to 29/11/2019, including all the periods spent in the detention facility he complained of
3,000
17529/20
31/07/2020
Cristian RUS
1985
Gherla Prison
23/12/2019 to
10/12/2020
11 month(s) and 18 day(s)
2.10 - 2.54 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light
1,000
19660/20
23/07/2020
Dan GHIGĂ
1974
Craiova‑Pelendava Prison
23/12/2019 to
07/07/2020
6 month(s) and 15 day(s)
-
bunk beds, lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
1,000
21536/20
06/05/2020
Dragoş‑Cosmin BANU
1984
Bucharest‑Rahova Prison
23/01/2020 to
25/03/2020
2 month(s) and 3 day(s)
2.79 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods 23/01/2020 - 18/02/2020 and 28/02/2020 - 25/03/2020), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell
1,000
22453/20
20/08/2020
Theodor UNGUR
1994
Iași and Botoșani Prisons
23/12/2019 to
22/12/2020
1 year(s)
2.12 - 2.86 m²
overcrowding (save for the period 27/03/2020 - 08/05/2020), lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air
30 days in compensation for a total period of 175 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 01/07/2019 to 23/12/2019, including all the periods spent in the detention facilities he complained of
1,000
42575/20
28/10/2020
Marinel‑Silviu VĂCARU
1982
Craiova and Craiova‑Pelendava Prisons
14/12/2019 to
08/09/2020
8 month(s) and 26 day(s)
2.36 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods 23/12/2019 - 23/01/2020 and 13/08/2020 - 08/09/2020), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature
6 days in compensation for a total period of 30 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 14/11/2019 to 14/12/2019, spent in Craiova Prison
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy