...

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Ion Floroiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Craiova.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. At the time of his application to the Court the applicant had, since 24 December 2007, been serving a sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment for theft. He had previously served a succession of sentences in Romanian prisons between 24 April 1978 and 12 July 2007, with interruptions, after being convicted on eleven occasions of a range of offences. The applicant was released on licence on 19 January 2012.

5. While serving his sentence between 24 December 2007 and 18 January 2012 the applicant asked for permission to work, as is apparent from information supplied by the National Prison Service. A specialist panel at the prison granted his request, assigning him the task of maintaining the prison’s vehicle fleet. He carried out this work for a total of 114 days. As the work was deemed by the National Prison Service to assist the day-to-day running of the prison, he did not receive any payment but, by way of compensation, was granted a reduction of thirty-seven days in the term remaining to be served. During his previous periods of imprisonment between 24 April 1978 and 12 July 2007, he had worked for a cumulative total of five years and eleven months. In return, he had either been granted a reduction in the number of days remaining to be served if the work involved assisting the day-to-day running of the prison, or he had received payment in accordance with the Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 23/1969), as in force at the relevant time (see paragraph 21 below). He was not affiliated to the old-age pension scheme under the general social-security system.

6. Outside his periods in prison, the applicant was in gainful employment and contributed to the national social-security scheme for a total of one year and two months. In 2007 he was registered as a jobseeker with the National Employment Agency.

...

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. The Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 23/1969)

18. Law no. 23/1969 has been amended and superseded by a new Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 275 of 4 July 2006). Under section 57(2) of Law no. 275/2006, prisoners are able to work provided that they agree to do so. Older prisoners (men over sixty years of age and women over fifty-five) may work only at their own request. Section 61 of Law no. 275/2006 provides that any income received by prisoners from their work in detention is not treated as wages and is taxable in accordance with the ordinary provisions on taxation of individuals’ income. Under section 62 of the same Law, as amended by Law no. 83 of 19 May 2010, the money earned by working prisoners is distributed as follows: 40% is paid to the prisoner (up to 75% of which can be used while in prison, the remaining 25% being made available on the day of release) and 60% to the National Prison Service, which it treats as its own revenue. The same section requires the Prison Service to inform prisoners of the possibility of signing an agreement entitling them to be covered by the State social-insurance system by paying voluntary contributions on their income from prison work.

19. Prisoners who, during the course of their sentence, have become unfit for work as a result of an industrial accident or an occupational disease are entitled to an invalidity pension. The Law also guarantees all prisoners the right to free medical assistance while in prison, including access to qualified medical staff, medicines and medical treatment.

20. The Law provides that prisoners are to be paid for any work they do, except for tasks assisting the day-to-day running of the detention facility or work carried out in the event of a natural disaster, which do not give rise to payment. Tasks assisting the day-to-day running of the facility include kitchen work, cleaning, equipment maintenance and workshop activities (metalwork, car repairs, manufacturing shoes and clothing).

...

4. The European Prison Rules

24. On 11 January 2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a new version of the European Prison Rules (Recommendation Rec(2006)2 – “the 2006 Rules”), noting that the 1987 Rules needed to be substantively revised and updated in order to reflect developments in penal policy, sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in Europe. Rule 26.9 states that work for prisoners is to be provided by the prison authorities, either on their own or in cooperation with private contractors, inside or outside prison. Rule 26.10 provides that in all instances there must be equitable remuneration of prisoners’ work.

COMPLAINTS

25. The applicant complained in substance of a breach of Article 4 of the Convention. He submitted that during the total of twenty-five years he had spent in different prisons, the management had forced him to perform various tasks which were very difficult, unpleasant and badly paid, without affiliating him to the old-age pension system.

26. Relying in substance on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention, he also complained that it was discriminatory to exclude prisoners who worked from being affiliated to the old-age pension system.

27. Lastly, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, he complained that he had not been given suitable medical treatment at the different detention facilities for his various illnesses.

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 4 of the Convention

28. The applicant complained that during a total of twenty-five years in prison he had been required to perform tasks which were difficult, unpleasant and badly paid, without being affiliated to the old-age pension system. The relevant part of Article 4 of the Convention reads:

“...

2. No. one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. For the purpose of this article the term ‘forced or compulsory labour’ shall not include:

(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of [the] Convention ...”

29. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations, submitting that for most of the relevant time he had worked in workshops repairing and maintaining prison vehicles. They pointed out that he would not have faced any sanctions had he chosen not to work. Since the entry into force of Law no. 275/2006, prison work had become optional. The applicant challenged the Government’s submissions and repeated the allegations set out in his application.

30. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant’s complaint partly concerns events that took place before Romania ratified the Convention on 20 June 1994. It does not have jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine this part of the applicant’s complaint; and the subsequent failure of remedies used by the applicant with the aim of redressing the alleged interference cannot bring it within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 77-79, ECHR 2006 ‑ III). Nor does the case concern a continuing situation which began before the Convention came into force and extended beyond that date. Between 24 April 1978 and 18 January 2012 the applicant served various prison sentences on a non-continuous basis, after being convicted on eleven occasions of a range of offences; his spells in prison were interspersed with periods at liberty.

31. The Court further reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. Where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the six-month period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of such acts or their effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002, and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and others, ECHR 2009). It must be pointed out that the applicant did not apply to the Court until 8 March 2010, even though he had felt the adverse effects of the situation underlying his complaints to the Court for almost thirty-two years as a result of the domestic legislation governing prison work. The Court therefore considers that its jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s complaint extends no further back than 24 December 2007, when his most recent period of imprisonment began. It notes that prior to that date, the applicant had been at liberty on several occasions and there would have been nothing to stop him from applying to the Court at those times to complain about events occurring during his various periods of imprisonment.

32. The Court observes that since the entry into force of the Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 275) on 4 July 2006, prisoners have needed to give their consent before being assigned work. Indeed, it appears from the information supplied by the Government that a specialist panel assigned the applicant the task of maintaining the prison’s vehicle fleet after he himself had requested to work (see paragraph 5 above). In any event, there is no indication in the material in the Court’s possession that the work done by the applicant during his most recent period of detention would not have been covered by the provisions of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention, which excludes “any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention” from the term “forced or compulsory labour”. In this connection, the Court observes that in the Stummer v. Austria case ([GC], no. 37452/02, § 132, ECHR 2011) it held that obligatory work performed by a prisoner without being affiliated to the old-age pension system had to be regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” within the meaning of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It can see no particular grounds in the present case for departing from its previous finding.

33. As to the fact that the applicant was not paid for the work he did, the Court reiterates that this in itself does not prevent work of this kind from being regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” (see Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria , no. 11332/04, § 36, 9 October 2012, and Stummer , cited above, § 122).

34. The Court also notes that the 2006 European Prison Rules refer to the normalisation of prison work as one of the basic principles in this sphere. More specifically, Rule 26.10 of the 2006 Rules provides that “in all instances there shall be equitable remuneration of the work of prisoners”.

35. In the present case, the Court observes that under domestic law, prisoners are able to carry out either paid work or, in the case of tasks assisting the day-to-day running of the prison, work that does not give rise to remuneration but entitles them to a reduction in their sentence. Prisoners are able to choose between the two types of work after being informed of the conditions applicable in each case.

36. In the applicant’s case, the Court observes that in return for his 114 days’ work maintaining the prison’s vehicle fleet, he was granted a significant reduction in the time remaining to be served, amounting to thirty-seven days. Accordingly, the Court considers that the work carried out by the applicant was not entirely unpaid.

37. In the present case the Court considers that the work performed by the applicant can be regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” within the meaning of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

38. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

...

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President