Last Updated on December 10, 2020 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PAVEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 11950/16 and 10 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavel and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,
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
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained 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. 14450/16 and 25966/16 the Government claimed that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
8. The Court observes that in application no. 14450/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Codlea Prison ended on 18 July 2006 when he was transferred to another prison facility in respect of which he did not complain. He came back to Codlea Prison in November 2006 (see appended table). The application was lodged with the Court on 12 April 2016, that is more than six months after the end of the first period of his detention in Codlea Prison in 2006.
9. As regards application no. 25966/16, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in several detention facilities, which ended on 29 January 2010 with his transfer to another facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 5 September 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.
10. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 14450/16 and 25966/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
11. The Government also argued that all applicants had lost their victim status for periods of detention specified in the appended table because they had been afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those respective periods of detention.
12. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was found 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 further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison.
13. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
14. 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, Muršić 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 Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
15. In the leading case of Rezmiveș 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.
16. 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, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
20. The Court 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds
(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 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt 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 |
Represen-tative’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 domestically |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 11950/16
18/04/2016 |
Ionel PAVEL
1983 |
|
Vaslui County Police Station, Iași and Rahova Prisons
27/05/2010 to 24/07/2012 2 years and 1 month and 28 days |
1.3 – 2.8 m² | overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, inadequate recreational space
|
390 days in compensation
for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 28/12/2017 |
3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply