FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19043/16
Petrică ŞTEFOGLU against Romania
and 7 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 November 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 mainly 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 disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to them had not been sufficient.
The Court notes that, in its recent 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). This benefit had impacted on the term of the prison sentences giving the 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).
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 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.Remaining complaints
In applications nos. 19043/16, 60132/16 and 61621/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
The Court has examined these 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 do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
It follows that this part of applications nos. 19043/16, 60132/16 and 61621/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 10 December 2020.
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
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically
19043/16
07/07/2016
Petrică ŞTEFOGLU
1977
Galați and Brăila Prisons
22/08/2014 to 15/01/2019
4 years and 4 months and 25 days
462 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-15/01/2019
36287/16
11/07/2016
Daniel-Marian VĂDUVA
1984
Timișoara and Craiova Prisons
23/04/2016 to 17/10/2018
2 years and 5 months and 25 days
240 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/04/2016-03/09/2019
41163/16
16/08/2016
Constantin-Iulian CRAIOVEANU
1989
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest
Deva Centre for Pre-Trial Detention and Gherla and Aiud Prisons
19/09/2015 to 14/10/2019
4 years and 26 days
282 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 14/09/2015-23/12/2019
45073/16
22/09/2016
Valentin URSAN
1979
Aiud Prison
09/09/2013 to 07/03/2019
5 years and 5 months and 27 days
456 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 20/08/2013-14/11/2019
49463/16
11/08/2016
Octavian-Silviu TĂTARU
1986
Ionela Mărgărit
Bucharest
Galați and Brăila Prisons
03/03/2016 to 16/01/2018
1 year and 10 months and 14 days
132 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 29/01/2016-16/01/2018
60132/16
12/10/2016
Iosif-Adrian MÎȚ
1964
Tudor Vasile Zach
Oradea
Gherla Prison
27/01/2016 to
04/06/2019
3 years and 4 months and 9 days
498 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/07/2012-04/06/2019
60895/16
11/11/2016
Dumitru ANTOCHE
1965
Bacău County Police Inspectorate and Bacău, Rahova, Focșani, Iasi, Tulcea and Vaslui Prisons
29/01/2013 to 06/08/2019
6 years and 6 months and 9 days
492 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 29/01/2013-05/11/2019
61621/16
23/11/2016
Nicolae ARGHIR
1960
Ionela Mărgărit
Bucharest
Brăila County Police Inspectorate and Brăila and Galați Prisons
17/12/2015 to 30/07/2019
3 years and 7 months and 14 days
318 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 13/11/2014-30/07/2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy