THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63289/12 R ă zvan LELEA against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 7 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Johannes Silvis , Valeriu Griţco , judges,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 September 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 April 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr R ă zvan Lelea , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Oradea . He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Hristescu , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, M s C. Brumar , from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

The applicant had been detained for a period of nine months and twenty six days in the Oradea and Satu Mare Penitentiaries. He had been detained in the Oradea Penitentiary from 20 Se ptember 2011 until 1 March 2012, when he had been transferred to the Satu Mare Penitentiary, from where he had been released on 16 July 2012. I n the Satu Mare Penitentiary he had been detained together with six other detainees in a cell of six square meters.

I n these p rison s , there were unsanitary condition s and the mattresses were old, dirty and infested with bed bugs . The showers were only available twice a week for merely one hour, during which time 100 persons had to use them, which made it difficult to take proper showers. D uring winter it was very cold as the heaters were old and not functional. The applicant did not allegedly receive enough food.

T he applicant was transported between the penitentiaries and the national courts in very hot or very cold vans, depending on the outside temperature, and having to urinate in plastic recipients.

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman and degrading conditions in both penitentiaries, notably about overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions , and about the conditions of his transport between the penitentiaries and the national courts .

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Oradea and Satu Mare Prison . He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 9 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“ The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 3, as regards the detention conditions.

The Government is prepared to pay to Mr. Răzvan Lelea , as just satisfaction, the sum of 2,700 E UR (two thousand seven hundred Euros), amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-Jaw. This sum is to cover all damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable in Romanian lei at the rate applicable at the date of payment to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to A rticle 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Therefore, the Government respectfully invites the Court rule that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. ”

By a letter of 16 May 2014 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration .

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ) , no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ) , no. 28953/03 , 18 September 2007 ).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, Lăutaru v. Romania , no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011, Flămînzeanu v. Romania , no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, Iamandi v. Romania , no. 25867/03, 1 June 2010, and Brânduşe v. Romania , no. 6586/03, ECHR-2009 (extracts)).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan              Deputy Registrar President