FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5562/17
Albert-Marius MOLDOVEANU against Romania
and 3 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 LAW
Joinder of the applicationsHaving 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 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.”
The Government argued mainly that the applicants had lost their victim status because they had benefited 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 disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to them had been insufficient.
The Court notes that in its decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it 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). That benefit had an impact on the term of the prison sentences giving detainees an 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 the admissibility of these complaints. 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).
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 insofar as the conditions of their detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. It follows that the applications in this part 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 15 December 2022.
{signature_p_2}
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
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Domestic compensation awarded
(in days)
based on total period calculated by national authorities
5562/17
10/01/2017
Albert-Marius MOLDOVEANU
1975
Argeş County Police Station ;
Mioveni, Rahova, Giurgiu, Jilava and Găeşti Prisons; Jilava and Rahova Hospital Prisons
21/03/2013 to
20/12/2017
4 year(s) and 9 month(s)
318 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 21/03/2013 to 20/12/2017
7377/17
24/02/2017
Florin STAN
1974
Bacău, Jilava and Găeşti Prisons
07/03/2016 to
07/06/2017
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)
150 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions during many detention periods, including the period from 07/03/2016 to 07/06/2017
25177/17
25/03/2017
Constantin GHEORGHIU
1979
Poarta Albă Prison
04/09/2013 to
26/09/2016
3 year(s) and 23 day(s)
246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/09/2013 to 26/09/2016.
28432/19
08/07/2019
Crăciun-Augustin TEGLAȘ
1965
Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons;
Dej Prison Hospital
04/01/2018 to
03/12/2019
1 year(s) and 11 month(s)
132 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/01/2018 to 03/12/2019