Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF RÄ‚DUCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 27613/17 and 10 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 December 2022

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

In the case of Răducu and Others v. Romania,

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

Armen Harutyunyan , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

7. In applications nos. 30516/17, 45413/17, 69457/17, 70897/17, 77656/17 and 79335/17, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status by the applicants for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention.

8. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23-33, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications, and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).

9. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 30516/17, 45413/17, 69457/17, 70897/17, 77656/17 and 79335/17 are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

10. Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention as specified in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see MurÅ¡ić , cited above, §§ 122 ‑ 41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 59, 10 January 2012).

11. In the leading case of RezmiveÈ™ and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (including its findings in the case of Polgar v. Romania , no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, were inadequate.

13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

14. In applications nos. 45413/17, 59062/17, 69457/17, 70897/17, 79335/17 and 80445/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

15. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

16. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

17. 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.”

18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, RezmiveÈ™ and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

19. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

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

Representative’s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m per inmate

Specific grievances

Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities

Amount awarded for

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage

and costs and expenses per

applicant (in euros) [1]

27613/17

03/05/2017

Constantin RÄ‚DUCU

1989Craiova, Mărgineni and Mioveni Prisons

23/12/2019 to

26/11/2020

11 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Mioveni Prison

21/12/2020 to

12/07/2021

6 month(s) and 22 day(s)

1.92 - 2.86 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods 17/03/2020 - 08/04/2020 and 30/06/2021 - 12/07/2021), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture

3,000

30516/17

04/04/2017

Francisc LEÅ¢EG

1966Nichita-Costescu Cezara-Maria

Timișoara

Arad Prison

17/04/2014 to

08/09/2014

4 month(s) and 23 day(s)

Arad Prison

07/11/2014 to

12/11/2014

6 day(s)

Arad Prison

13/02/2015 to

23/12/2015

10 month(s) and 11 day(s)

Arad Prison

29/03/2017 to

29/06/2017

3 month(s) and 1 day(s)

-

lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature

174 days in compensation for a total period of 881 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 17/04/2014 to 03/04/2018, including all the periods spent in Timișoara, Gherla and Oradea Prisons

3,000

45413/17

19/06/2017

Dumitru CONDURACHE

1974Cadar Andreea-Gabriela

Galați

Constanța – Poarta Albă and Slobozia Prisons

23/12/2019

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s)

-

mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water

210 days in compensation for a total period of 1,078 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/11/2014 to 22/12/2019 in Slobozia and Constanța - Poarta Albă Prisons, except for periods spent in prison hospitals and transit rooms

3,000

59062/17

04/08/2017

Daniel BENEA

1984Tonică Daniela

Huși

Vaslui and Iași Prisons; Bucharest - Jilava Prison Hospital

04/07/2013 to

24/05/2017

3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)

1.28 - 2.93 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods 12/07/2013 - 26/07/2013, 10/12/2013 - 10/02/2014, 07/07/2014 - 27/10/2014, 17/11/2014 - 23/12/2014 and 14/07/2015 - 17/07/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light

3,000

62293/17

16/08/2017

Ioan FAUR

1973Trif Nicoleta

Arad

Arad County Police Station; Arad and Timișoara Prisons

31/03/2014 to

21/09/2017

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 day(s)

2.04 - 2.50 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods 31/03/2014 - 23/12/2015 and 25/08/2016 - 21/09/2017), mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

3,000

69457/17

15/11/2017

Vasile-Dănuț SUIOCAN

1993Mioveni (Colibași) Prison Hospital

21/07/2016 to

04/08/2016

15 day(s)

Bucharest - Rahova Prison Hospital

12/12/2016 to

19/12/2016

8 day(s)

Aiud Prison and Dej Prison Hospital

06/04/2017 to

20/04/2017

15 day(s)

Bucharest - Rahova Prison Hospital

08/05/2017 to

18/05/2017

11 day(s)

Dej Prison Hospital

20/04/2018 to

03/05/2018

14 day(s)

Bucharest - Rahova Prison Hospital

11/07/2019 to

22/08/2019

1 month(s) and 12 day(s)

Deva Prison

23/12/2019 to

31/12/2019

9 day(s)

Aiud Prison and Dej Prison Hospital

30/04/2020 to

19/04/2021

11 month(s) and 21 day(s)

-

overcrowding (save for the periods 21/07/2016 - 04/08/2016, 07/04/2017 - 18/04/2017, 20/04/2018 - 03/05/2018, 14/09/2020 - 16/03/2021 and 18/04/2021 - 19/04/2021), lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water

236 days in compensation for a total period of 1,232 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 28/01/2015 to 03/03/2016, from 10/03/2016 to 01/12/2018 and from 11/07/2019 to 22/12/2019 in Aiud, Deva and Mioveni (Colibași) Prisons, except for the periods mentioned in column no. 5 and for short periods spent in infirmary or transit rooms

3,000

70897/17

20/09/2017

Marian TÃŽRNOVEANU

1982Abraham Pavel

Bucharest

Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons

23/12/2019 to

03/04/2020

3 month(s) and 12 day(s)

2.51 m²

overcrowding (save for the period 30/01/2020 - 03/04/2020), lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

492 days in compensation for a total period of 2,487 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 20/02/2013 to 22/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Giurgiu and Bucharest - Jilava Prisons

1,000

77656/17

04/01/2018

Gheorghe-Nicolae ȘANDRU

1976Arad and Timișoara Prisons

21/01/2016

pending

More than 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)

2.25 - 3 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods 21/01/2016 - 21/04/2016, 16/03/2017 - 06/06/2019 and 18/06/2019 - 02/03/2022), mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries

24 days in compensation for a total period of 120 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 23/09/2015 to 21/01/2016, including all the periods spent in Timiș County Police Station and Timișoara Prison

5,000

78603/17

06/11/2017

Stive Gabriel BULUGEA

1970Ciocan Iulia

Craiova

Bucharest - Rahova, Craiova, Craiova - Pelendava, Drobeta-Turnu Severin and Găești Prisons; Mioveni Prison Hospital

11/02/2015 to

23/06/2017

2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)

1.30 - 2.79 m²

overcrowding (save for the periods 12/03/2015 - 20/03/2015, 26/03/2015 - 04/05/2015, 16/07/2015 - 23/07/2015, 18/11/2015 - 23/12/2015 and 10/11/2016 - 28/06/2017), mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature

3,000

79335/17

29/09/2017

Ioan ILIAÅž

1970Arad and Bucharest - Rahova Prisons

10/12/2014 to

17/06/2016

1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)

Arad and Bucharest - Rahova Prisons

28/04/2017 to

08/06/2017

1 month(s) and 12 day(s)

Arad Prison

22/06/2017 to

01/07/2017

10 day(s)

Arad Prison

27/03/2019

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s)

-

infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water

186 days in compensation for a total period of 945 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 10/12/2014 to 22/12/2019 in Arad and Mărgineni Prisons, except for the periods mentioned in column no. 5 and for short periods spent in prison hospitals or transit rooms

5,000

80445/17

16/11/2017

Gheorghe VARGA

1985Trif Ioan Cătălin Daniel

Satu Mare

Satu Mare Prison

14/02/2017 to

16/05/2017

3 month(s) and 3 day(s)

1.72 m²

overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

1,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

CASE OF RĂDUCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF RĂDUCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI