Information Note on the Court’s case-law 240

May 2020

Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania (dec.) - 14224/15 and 50977/15

Decision 15.4.2020 [Section IV]

Article 34

Victim

Compensation for poor conditions of detention by specific and measurable reduction in sentence leading to applicants’ release: loss of victim status

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Compensation for poor conditions of detention by specific and measurable reduction in sentence leading to applicants’ release: inadmissible

Facts – Following the pilot judgment Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (61467/12 et al., 25 April 2017, Information Note 206 ) , Law no . 169/2017 introduced compensation in the form of a reduction in the prison sentence to be served, which was expressly granted in the event of poor conditions of detention in various prisons or police cells in the period from 24 July 2012 to 20 December 20 19.

The applicants were granted a reduction of sentence in that context. The eligibility of the first applicant for release on licence was brought forward by two months and for the second applicant the reduced length of imprisonment had already been served ; thus they were both released early.

Law – Article 3 (substantive limb): As the two detailed conditions below had been fulfilled, the Court reached the conclusion that the applicants had lost their status as “victims” of the poor conditions of detention i n which they had been held.

(a) The national authorities acknowledged the violation of Article 3 of the Convention – This acknowledgment had been given in essence, through Law no. 169/2017, the aim of which was to compensate the applicants for the period of detention in conditions which breached Article 3.

The assessment of those conditions was made by a board specially created by law on the basis of criteria in line with the minimum standards of the Council of Europe and the Court’s case-law (living space, the possibility of engaging in activities outside t he cells, light, ventilation and temperature of cells, use of sanitary facilities and respect for hygiene, and the state of the cell walls).

(b) The redress had been appropriate and adequate – On a general level the Court found as follows:

– The reduction in sentence granted to the applicants corresponded to six days for each thirty-day period of detention in poor conditions, this being greater than the reduction already found appropriate by the Court in Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.) (49169/09 et al., 1 6 September 2014, Information Note 177 ): one day of reduction for ten days of detention).

– The calculation of the reduction to be applied had been carried out by the detention management offices an d the direct benefit of the reduction had been the early release of the prisoners.

– Under Romanian law the procedure for release on licence was initiated either by the prisoners themselves or by release boards, and such requests were in principle examined once a week.

In the present case the applicants had thus benefitted from a reduction in sentence of 324 and 318 days respectively, in that context, enjoying the direct effect of their early release and thus an end to the alleged violation.

Even though the compensatory remedy in question was only temporary, the Secretariat of the Council of Europe had confirmed that it had a measurable impact on the length of sentence and contributed to a reduction in prison overcrowding, and the Committee of Ministers itse lf had found this compensation to be effective in cases concerning detention conditions ( CM/Del/Dec(2018)1310/H46-13 , 15 March 2018)

Conclusion : inadmissible (loss of victim statu s).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes