SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MIRON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

( Application no. 74497/13 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 September 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Miron v. the Republic of Moldova ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens, President, Valeriu Griţco , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2018 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 74497/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Alexandru Miron (“the applicant”), on 7 November 2013.

2 . The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr R. Zadoinov a lawyer practising in Chi ș in ă u . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time , Mr L . Apostol.

3 . On 29 September 2014 the complaints concerning Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 3 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Chi ș in ă u .

A . The applicant ’ s arrest and detention

5 . On 24 August 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody on charges of murder and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He was remanded in custody by the Centru District Court on 28 August 2011 and his detention was subsequently extended every thirty days until 21 January 2012 on the grounds that given the seriousness of the charges against him, he might abscond, re-offend and interfere with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions.

6 . On 17 January 2012 the applicant ’ s case was committed for trial and his detention was extended by the court every three months, finding that the grounds which justified his initial detention had remained valid.

7 . In his appeals against the decisions of 12 April, 10 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant complained, inter alia , about the length of his detention which , in his view, was no longer justified . He argued that his detention pending trial had already exceeded the twelve-month time-limit set under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the courts had not put forward any exceptional circumstance justifying such a long detention period, while the seriousness of charges could not by themselves constitute sufficient ground for his extended deprivation of liberty.

8 . By decisions of 23 April, 20 June and 25 July 2013 the Chi ș inău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

9 . By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 17 September 2014 the applicant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to twenty ‑ three years of imprisonment.

B. Conditions of detention

10 . On 28 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chi ș inău where he was de tained until 4 December 2014 .

11 . According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, and accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 sq uare m etres . Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diag nosed with tuberculosis or HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes.

12 . On 18 April 2014 the applicant ’ s lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office about the applicant ’ s detention conditions in prison no. 13. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions denied the complaints on overcrowding, TB infected inmates, insufficient food and medical assistance.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

13 . The relevant domestic law was summarised in Savca v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 17963/08 , § 12-17, 15 March 2016.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

14 . The applicant complained that his detention in inadequate conditions had amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. Admissibility

15 . The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Conventi on. It further notes that they are not inadm issible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

16 . The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of detention in p rison no. 13 (see paragraph 11 above) .

17 . The Government disputed the applicant ’ s allegations and argued that the applicant ’ s conditions of detention in prison no. 13 had not amount ed to inhuman and degrading treatment.

18 . The Court reiterates the general principles concerning conditions of detention set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005; in Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 11353/06 , §§ 83-85 , 15 September 2015; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § § 163-67, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Mursič v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 104, ECHR 2016 ).

19 . The Court recalls that it has found the conditions of detention in p rison no. 13 to be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in numerous judgments (see, among recent authorities, Hadji v. Moldova , nos. 32844/07 and 41378/07, § 20, 14 February 2012; Silvestru v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 28173/10 , 13 January 2015; and Pisaroglu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 21061/11 , 3 March 2015 ). The Court thus considers that the hardship endured by the app licant during his detention in prison no . 13 went beyond the unavoidable level of hardship inherent in detention and reached the threshold of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION

20 . The applicant complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that his detention was longer than the maximum duration allowed by the domestic law. Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;”

21 . The applicant also complained of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Covention on account of the fact that the decisions to remand him in custody had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention reads:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

A. Admissibility

22 . The Court notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

23 . The applicant complained that, contrary to Article 25(4) of the Constitution, he had been remanded in custody for a period exceeding twelve months. He argued that such a long detention was unlawful under domestic law, and was therefore contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

24 . The Government disagreed with the applicant and argued that his detention had been lawful under domestic law.

25 . The Court recalls that it has examined an identical complaint in Savca (cited above , §§ 43-53) and found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the legislation on the basis of which the applicant had been detained was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application and thus did not meet the requirement of “lawfulness”. Since there are no reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the present case too.

26 . In the light of the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Savca , cited above, § 54) .

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

27 . The applicant submitted that no effective remedies existed against inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

A. Admissibility

28 . The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

29 . The Government disputed the applicant ’ s submissions and argued that there had not been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention .

30 . As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 of the Convention is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief.

31 . The Court reiterates that it has examined on numerous occasions the issue of domestic remedies in respect of poor conditions of detention in Moldova (see Sarban v. Moldova , no. 3456/05, §§ 57-62, 4 October 2005; Holomiov v. Moldova , no. 30649/05, §§ 101-07, 7 November 2006; Istratii and Others v. Moldova , nos. 8721/05 and 2 others, § 38, 27 March 2007; Mitrofan v. Moldova , no. 50054/07, §§ 32 and 33, 15 January 2013; Segheti v. the Moldova , no. 39584/07 , § 22, 15 October 2013; Shishanov , cited above, § 75; and Mescereacov v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 61050/11 , § 15, 9 February 2016 ), and has concluded on each occasion that the remedies suggested by the Government (including those suggested in the present case) were ineffective. In Malai v. Moldova (no. 7101/06, §§ 42-46, 13 November 2008), Mitrofan (cited above, § 61), and Segheti (cited above, § 38) it found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of inhuman and degrading conditions. The present case is no exception. Therefore, the Court considers that it has not been shown that effective remedies existed in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3. There has thus been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

I V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

32 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

33 . The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.

34 . The Government disagreed with the amount of non-pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant.

35 . The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered stress and frustration as a result of the violations found. The particular amount claimed is, however, excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

36 . The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

37 . The Government claimed that the amount claimed was excessive.

38 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to the legal aid granted to the applicant , the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1, 0 00 for costs and expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

6 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

( i ) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1, 0 00 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 September 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar President