CASE OF ZĂGREANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ZĂGREANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 20550/18 and 5 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 April 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zăgreanu and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2024,

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

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6.  On 19 November 2020 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant, Mr Mircea Vasile Zăgreanu, had died on 17 March 2020. The applicant’s representative, also acting as the representative of the applicant’s heirs, Mrs Valentina Edita Zăgreanu (the applicant’s surviving spouse), Ms Anna Lorena Zăgreanu and Mr Luca Vasile Zăgreanu (the applicant’s children), confirmed their intention to pursue the present application and submitted copies of their identity cards, birth certificates and marriage licence.

7.  The Registry acknowledged receipt of the letter and invited the representative to provide a copy of the inheritance certificate (“certificat de moștenitor”).

8.  By a letter of 15 June 2023, the representative informed the Court that the inheritance procedures have not yet been finalised and thus he was unable, for the time being, to provide inheritance certificates. However, he argued that the documents he provided proved the quality of heirs and thus, the legitimate interest to continue the proceedings on the applicant’s behalf.

9.  The Government, which had been provided with copies of the respective documents by the Registry, raised no objection related to the heirs’ status.

10.   The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the surviving spouse and children as the applicant’s heirs. Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicant’s heirs have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016).

11.  Accordingly, the Court decides that Mrs Valentina Edita Zăgreanu, Ms Anna Lorena Zăgreanu and Mr Luca Vasile Zăgreanu have standing to continue the proceedings on behalf of late Mr Mircea Vasile Zăgreanu, to whom the Court will continue referring as the applicant in the present judgment.

12.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

13.  As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 21505/20, 47824/20 and 53319/20, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status for certain periods of detention specified in the appended table because adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences was afforded for those specific periods of detention.

14.  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. The Court therefore finds that the relevant parts of applications nos. 21505/20, 47824/20 and 53319/20 (details described in the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicants were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of their detention, specified in the appended table. Those parts of the applications must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

15.  In addition, 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.

16.  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 held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v. Romania, (dec.), no. 122/17, §§ 30-33, 15 November 2022).

17.  However, the applicants ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021 (for further details see appended table). Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of those periods indicated in the table below as the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations.

18.  Turning to the 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 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).

19.  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.

20.  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 periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.

21.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

22.  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,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants and, in application no. 20550/18, the applicant’s heirs (Mrs Valentina Edita Zăgreanu, Ms Anna Lorena Zăgreanu and Mr. Luca Vasile Zăgreanu) 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 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.