Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206

April 2017

RezmiveÈ™ and Others v. Romania - 61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 et al.

Judgment 25.4.2017 [Section IV]

Article 46

Pilot judgment

General measures (pilot judgment)

Respondent State to take measures to resolve problems relating to conditions of detention in prisons and police cells

Facts – Since the first judgments of this kind were delivered in 2007 and 2008 , there has been a steady increase in the number of findings of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Romania on account of inadequate conditions of detention in prisons or police cells. Most of these cases, like the present one, have concerned ove rcrowding and various recurrent material aspects (lack of hygiene, insufficient ventilation and lighting, sanitary facilities not in working order, insufficient or inadequate food, restricted access to showers, presence of rats, cockroaches and lice, and s o on).

In the Iacov Stanciu v. Romania judgment ( 35972/05 , 24 July 2012), the finding of an underlying structural problem led the Court to suggest, on the basis of Article 46 of the Convention, th at general measures be taken to improve the material conditions in Romanian prisons and to provide adequate remedies.

Law – The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the poor conditions of the f our applicants’ detention. It awarded the first and fourth applicants EUR 3,000 each and the second and third applicants EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Article 46: The persistence of the structural problem identified in 2012 and the cor responding influx of applications justified the implementation of the pilot-judgment procedure.

(a) General measures – In view of the significant and urgent nature of the problem identified and the fundamental nature of the rights in question, general mea sures had to be implemented within a reasonable time. The Romanian Government were required to provide within six months (once the judgment had become final) a precise timetable for introducing the appropriate general measures, the practical aspects of whi ch they were to define under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. Two strands of action were identified.

(i) Reducing overcrowding and improving material conditions of detention – The occupancy rate for all Romanian custodial facilities varied between 149% and 154%. The majority of the more recent judgments concerned applicants serving sentences in a living space of less than 3 sq. m or even 2 sq. m.

Where a State was unable to guarantee that each prisoner was detained in conditions compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, the Court encouraged it to reduce the prison population by making use of non-custodial punitive measures and minimising recours e to pre-trial detention. Various recommendations had also been issued by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CPT ), the Committee of Ministers and the European Committee on Crime Problems ( CDPC ) in its White Paper on Prison Overcrowding .

In the case of detention prior to conviction, the Court observed that since the cells at police stations were intended to house detainees for only very short periods, the domestic authorities should ensure that anyone detained pending trial was transferred to a prison after the initial period of police custody. The use of alternative measures to pre-trial detention should also be encouraged.

With regard to post-conviction detention, according to Recommendation Rec(99)22 of the Committee of Ministers, the creation of additional prison capacity was in principle not a lasting solution to the problem of overcrowding. Furthermore, f unding was already required to renovate the existing detention facilities. Among the potential solutions to be considered, the Court suggested: a wider range of alternative penalties to detention; relaxation of the conditions for waiving the imposition of a sentence, deferring sentencing or granting conditional release; and satisfactory operation of the probation service.

(ii) Providing remedies

Preventive aspect – Despite the efforts of the courts and authorities, it was difficult to envisage a genuine pr ospect for detainees to obtain redress for their situation following a decision in their favour unless there was a general improvement in the conditions of detention in Romanian prisons.

Compensatory aspect – The courts currently applied a system of subje ctive liability alone, requiring proof that the person responsible for the damage had been at fault. In the case of poor conditions of detention, the burden of proof should not be excessive. Moreover, poor conditions of detention were not necessarily the r esult of shortcomings on the part of the prison service but usually had more complex causes, such as problems in criminal policy.

The Court therefore encouraged the introduction of a specific compensatory remedy (as in Varga and Others v. Hungary , 14097/1 2 et al., 10 March 2015, Information Note 183 ). A reduced prison sentence could constitute appropriate compensation, provided that the reduction was explicitly granted to afford redress for the viol ation of Article 3 of the Convention and its impact on the length of the sentence was measurable.

(b) Outcome of similar cases – In the meantime, the Court would adjourn the examination of any applications not yet communicated to the Romanian Government in which the sole or main complaint concerned overcrowding and poor detention conditions in prisons and police cells in Romania (without prejudice to the possibility of striking out or declaring inadmissible any such applications where appropriate).

Conclu sion : Respondent State required to provide a timetable for action within six months; adjournment of the Court’s examination of similar cases (unanimously).

(See the Factsheets on Pilot judgments and Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners )

© 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