FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32385/15
Bogdănel CIOROIANU against Romania
and 2 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)
The applicants complained 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.”
The Government pleaded that the applicants had lost their victim status due to the fact that they had benefitted from the remedy offered by Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. They asked the Court to reject the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.
The applicants either disagreed claiming that the compensation awarded had not been sufficient or did not object.
The Court notes that, in its recent decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) the Court has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible considering that the applicants had lost their victim status. The Court noted that Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences, adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017) and in force between October 2017 and December 2019, had been an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law had set forth a compensatory remedy, available for periods of detention ranging from 2012 to 2019 and allowing the deduction of six days for 30 days spent in conditions of detention that fell short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Dîrjan and Ştefan, cited above, § 28). This benefit had impacted on the term of the prison sentences and had given detainees the opportunity of earlier release on parole.
Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on their admissibility. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan, awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison.
The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that these complaints 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 January 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtArmen 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
Domestic compensation awarded
(in days)
based on total period calculated domestically
32385/15
03/08/2015
Bogdănel CIOROIANU
1962
Rahova and Craiova Prisons, Mioveni Prison Hospital
06/05/2014 to
15/06/2016
2 years and 1 month and 10 days
228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 06/05/2014-06/02/2018
41853/15
24/12/2015
Ioana-Magdalena MĂRGĂRIT
1970
Târgșor Prison
07/12/2013 to
29/01/2019
5 years and 1 month and 23 days
348 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 07/12/2013-29/01/2019
59308/15
18/01/2016
Vasile CONSTANTIN
1959
Mărgineni and Ploiești Prisons
08/05/2013 to
07/11/2017
4 years and 6 months
312 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-07/11/2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy