CASE OF RUSU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro

FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RUSU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 27929/16 and 6 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2021

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

In the case of Rusu 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 17 December 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. The Government raised a preliminary objection concerning all applicants’ loss of victim status for periods of detention as indicated in the appended table. The Government claimed that the applicants 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 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.

10. Turning to the 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, Muršićv. 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).

11. 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.

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, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate.

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

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14. In application no. 44783/16, the applicant also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to a period of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.

15. The Court has examined this application 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 do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit.

It follows that this part of application no. 44783/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16. 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.”

17. 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 sumsindicated in the appended table.

18. 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 21 January 2021, 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	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 domestically	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	27929/16 15/09/2016	Laur-Alexandru RUSU 1989		Rahova Prison 09/05/2013 to 03/09/2013 3 months and 26 days	2.4 m²	overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet	246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 12/02/2013 to 08/05/2013 and from 04/09/2013 to 23/08/2019	1,000
2.	44783/16 16/03/2017	Vasile GOLOGAN 1986	SilviuCiprianFinică Bacău	Bacău Prison 30/11/2019 – pending More than 1 year and 1 day	1.19 m²	overcrowding, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents	522 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 29/11/2019	3,000
3.	45200/16 26/08/2016	Codruț-Adrian ROMANIUC 1978		Galati Prison 11/05/2017 to 26/06/2017 1 month and 16 days Galati Prison 16/11/2019 – pending More than 1 year and 15 days	1.7 m²	overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air	486 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 26/11/2012 to 11/05/2017 and from 26/06/2017 to 16/11/2019	3,000
4.	53343/16 26/09/2016	Titi ANGHEL 1993		Giurgiu Prison 16/04/2018 to 21/06/2018 2 months and 6 days Giurgiu Prison 23/12/2019 – pending More than 11 months and 9 days		lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease	246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 14/01/2016 to 15/04/2018 and from 22/06/2018 to 22/12/2019	3,000
5.	53643/16 05/09/2016	Liliana-Daniela PANCU 1975		Jilava Prison Hospital and Arad, Oradea, Timișoara, Rahova, Târgșor and Codlea Prisons 07/09/2004 to 23/07/2012 7 years and 10 months and 17 days	0,54-2,83 m²	overcrowding (save for several periods, including 22/01/2008-25/03/2009 and 20/03/2012 -18/04/2012), lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of physical exercise, breaches of the hygiene regulations	420 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 17/05/2018	5,000
6.	53688/16 01/09/2016	Costică CHIRIAC 1979	LăcrămioaraGințu Timișoara	Arad Prison 29/09/2015 to 12/10/2015 14 days Arad Prison 03/11/2015 to 19/05/2016 6 months and 17 days Arad and Timișoara Prison 16/06/2016 to 26/07/2017 1 year and 1 month and 11 days Timișoara Prison 08/12/2019 – pending More than 11 months and 23 days	0,77-1,58 m²	overcrowding for the following periods: 04-27/11/2015, 14-24/12/2015 and 14/06-26/07/2017, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water	246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 19/03/2015 to 08/12/2019, except for the periods referred to in Column no. 5 (Facility, Start and end date, Duration)	3,000
7.	61632/16 23/11/2016	Sandu STĂVĂRACHE 1960	Ionela Mărgărit Bucarest	Galați County Police and Galați, Rahova, Jilava, Giurgiu, PoartaAlbă and Brăila Prisons 14/08/2009 to 23/07/2012 2 years and 11 months and 11 days	1-2,8 m²	overcrowding (save for 19/10/2010-08/11/2011), bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food	468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24//07/2012 to 15/01/2019	3,000

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