FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TROACĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 38903/16 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 Troacă 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. 43443/16 and 63340/16, 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. 43443/16 and 63340/16 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 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 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 COMPLAINTS14. In applications nos. 39614/16 and 60932/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the applications 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]
38903/16
22/12/2016
Marian-Lucian TROACĂ
1991
Dolj County Police Station, Craiova Pelendava and Drobeta Turnu Severin - Vânjuleţ Prisons
11/09/2014 to 13/07/2016
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s)
1,21 - 2,25 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 14/12/2015-13/07/2016), mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities etc.
–
3,000
39614/16
17/08/2016
Ionuț-Alexandru POPETE
1989
Mioveni (Colibaşi) and Craiova Prisons
07/11/2014 to
14/10/2016
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1,30 - 2,66 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 06/03/2015-16/03/2015), lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture etc.
–
3,000
39741/16
11/08/2016
Petrică TĂNASE
1986
Galaţi County Police Station; Galaţi, Brăila and Iaşi Prisons
18/12/2012 to
11/08/2016
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Brăila Prison
02/09/2016 to
18/09/2016
17 day(s)
Brăila Prison
15/11/2016 to
25/04/2017
5 month(s) and 11 day(s)
1,12 - 2,71 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 26/07/2016-08/08/2016, 02/09/2016-15/09/2016, 15/11/2016-01/03/2016), mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents etc.
–
3,000
40693/16
17/08/2016
Tudor CHIRILESCU
1987
Bucharest Police Station no. 7; Rahova, Mioveni (Colibaşi), Giurgiu. Jilava, Timişoara, Târgu-Jiu and Găești Prisons; Mioveni (Colibaşi) Prison Hospital
17/09/2009 to
24/08/2016
6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1.07 - 2.90 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell etc.
–
5,000
40863/16
31/08/2016
Daniel-Vasile STOENESCU
1984
Valon Marian
Drobata Turnu Severin
Drobeta Turnu Severin - Vânjuleţ Prison
01/10/2015 to
23/08/2016
10 month(s) and 23 day(s)
1.67 - 2.83 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 01/10/2015-22/10/2015), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water etc.
–
1,000
43443/16
29/08/2016
Doru DUROI
1980
Arad County Police Station, Arad, Timișoara, Rahova, Gherla, Drobeta Turnu Severin, Craiova Prisons and Jilava Prison Hospital
19/11/2000 to
23/07/2012
11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
1,54 - 2,94 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 31/05/2004-10/02/2005), mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet etc.
390 days in compensation for a total period of 1,966 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 12/12/2017
5,000
50279/16
16/09/2016
Radu-Ovidiu POPA
1972
Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons
04/05/2015 to
03/06/2017
2 year(s) and 1 month(s)
1,45 - 2,93 m²
overcrowding (save for the periods between 21/08/2015-27/01/2016 and 16/03/2017-30/06/2017), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture etc.
–
3,000
60932/16
29/12/2016
Petre ENESCU
1971
Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) and Ploieşti Prisons; Rahova Prison Hospital
21/05/2015 to
04/07/2017
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1,28 - 1,94 m²
overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to toilet etc.
–
3,000
61290/16
07/12/2016
George MĂRGĂRIT
1979
Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons
09/10/2015 to
11/09/2017
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 3 day(s)
1,66 - 2,90 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 03/05/2016-11/09/2017), inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water etc.
–
3,000
63340/16
16/12/2016
Costel IRAVA
1964
Vaslui Prison and Târgu Ocna Prison Hospital
23/12/2019 to
12/01/2021
1 year(s) and 21 day(s)
2.86 m²
overcrowding (save for the period between 12/06/2020-29/06/2020), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water etc.
450 days in compensation for a total period of 2,278 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 17/01/2013 – 22/12/2019
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.