FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VASILACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 1469/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)[1]
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 10 June 2021
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
20 May 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasilache and Others v. Romania[2],
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 22 April 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 principally 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. In all applications, excluding application no. 47300/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status 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 some of 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 in respect of all those applications, except for application no. 16903/16, and finds that these parts of the applications in respect of which the objection was raised 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. With regard to application no. 16903/16, the Government raised the preliminary objection concerning the applicant’s loss of victim status for his detention in Miercurea Ciuc prison from 2 September 2013 to 24 October 2017 underlining that he had been afforded adequate redress (312 days in compensation for his detention from 13 June 2013 to 19 October 2017, the date Law no. 169/2017 entered into force).
11. In this respect, it is to be noted that the applicant’s release on parole had already been ordered by the domestic courts on 18 October 2017, before the entry into force of the Law no. 169/2017. Even if the applicant’s release from prison became effective a few days after the entering into force of this Law, the Government failed to show that he was afforded a redress in concreto. Thus, the Court rejects the Government’s objection in respect of application no. 16903/16.
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. 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 were inadequate.
15. These complaints, as specified in the appended table below, are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In applications nos. 11421/16, 42306/16 and 47300/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
17. The Court has examined the 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.
It follows that these parts of applications nos. 11421/16, 42306/16 and 47300/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. 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.
20. 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;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 20 May 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
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)[3]
1469/16
09/02/2016
Ionuț-Iulian VASILACHE
1984
Bacău Prison
12/06/2012 to
23/07/2012
1 month and 12 days
1.13-2.21 m²
overcrowding (save for 12/07/2012 – 23/07/2012),
mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light
408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 20/03/2018
1,000
11421/16
17/03/2016
Alexandru FLOREA
1974
Mioveni Prison
20/07/2010 to
23/07/2012
2 years and 4 days
1.2-2 m²
overcrowding,
insufficient sanitary facilities, lack of fresh air and natural light, insects, insufficient access to hot water and restricted access to running water during summer, lack of furniture, lack of heating during winter, insufficient sanitary facilities, lack of fresh air, insects, poor quality of food, small courtyard
390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 20/12/2017
3,000
16903/16
21/04/2016
Viorel-Marian CIUBOTARIU
1973
Miercurea Ciuc Prison
02/09/2013 to
24/10/2017
4 years and 1 month and 23 days
1.5 m²
overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
312 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 13/06/2013 to 19/10/2017
3,000
42306/16
23/08/2016
Dănuț HREȘCU
1965
Gherla Prison
24/12/2019
pending
More than 1 year and 2 months and 13 days
2.51 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture
510 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019
3,000
47300/16
05/08/2016
Dragoș-Ionuț BURCAN
1981
Poarta Albă and Codlea Prisons
26/01/2016 to
17/10/2016
8 months and 22 days
1.69-1.87 m²
overcrowding,
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking, poor quality of food
1,000
48068/16
03/08/2016
Ilie-Paul MAILAT
1989
Arad County Police Station and Arad Prison
13/01/2011 to 07/05/2018
7 years and 2 months and 5 days
Timișoara and Arad Prisons
27/11/2019
Pending
More than 1 year and 4 months
2.83 m²
2.21 m²
overcrowding (save for 03/08/2011-18/01/2013), inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food
overcrowding (save for the period spent in Arad Prison), inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food
126 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 23/12/2019
out of which 120 days
for the period 07/05/2018 ‑ 26/11/2019
5,000
49754/16
29/09/2016
Gabriel ȚUGUI
1963
Bucharest Police detention facilities nos. 12 and 22, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons
01/04/2009 to
23/07/2012
3 years and 3 months and 23 days
1.61-2.89 m²
overcrowding (save for 01‑10/04/2009), bunk beds, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, 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 24/10/2018
3,000
[1] Rectified on 10 June 2021: the title was “CASE OF VASILE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 33213/15 and 7 others – see appended list)”. All the headers have been changed accordingly.
[2] Rectified on 10 June 2021: the text was “In the case of Vasile and Others v. Romania”
[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy