Last Updated on April 16, 2021 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VĂDUVA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 7344/15 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Văduvaand 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,
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. Following the death of Mr Văduva (application no. 7344/15), his widow and children informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application introduced by the applicant.
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. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 7344/15
6. On 1 February 2017, after the communication of the case, the Government informed the Court that the applicant in application no. 7344/15, Mr Văduva, had died on 6 November 2015, while in detention. They requested for the application to be struck out from the Court’s list of cases arguing that the complaints related to conditions of detention have a strictly personal character and cannot be pursued by heirs; they added that in any event the alleged heirs had not submitted any documentation to prove their legal standing as heirs.
7. On 4 May 2018 the applicant’s widow, Ms Elena Văduva and his children, Ms Carmen-Elena Andreescu, Mr Daniel-Ion Văduva, Mr Dorin‑Marian Văduva and Ms Mălina-PetronelaDumitrescu expressed their intention to pursue the application. The Government objected, claiming that the alleged heirs had failed to submit sufficient documents to prove their legal standing as heirs; the Government therefore maintained their request to have the application struck out from the Court’s list of cases.
8. In reply, the applicant’s relatives submitted further documentation – a certificate issued by the Ionești Townhall according to which the succession proceedings were opened, and the presumptive heirs are the widow and her four children. This document was communicated to the Government for information. No comments have been received by the Court.
9. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the presumptive heirs. Moreover, the Court considers that the applicant’s relatives have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016). The Government’s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected.
10. Accordingly, the Court decides that Ms Elena Văduva, Ms Carmen-Elena Andreescu, Mr Daniel-Ion Văduva, Mr Dorin-Marian Văduva and Ms Mălina‑PetronelaDumitrescu have standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 7344/15 on behalf of late Mr Văduva.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. In several applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status 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.
13. 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 some of the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).
14. 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.
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
19. In application nos. 17491/16 and 27754/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
20. The Court has examined these complaints 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 these parts of applications nos. 17491/16 and 27754/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. 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.”
22. 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.
23. 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. Decides that Ms Elena Văduva, MsCarmen-Elena Andreescu, Mr Daniel-Ion Văduva, Mr Dorin-Marian Văduva and Ms Mălina‑PetronelaDumitrescu, the widow and children of the applicant in application no. 7344/15, have locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as specified in the appended table, admissible,and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the heirs of the deceased applicant, Mr Văduva, jointly, and to each of the remaining 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 April 2021, 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 domestically | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant or jointly to heirs of the applicant, where relevant (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 7344/15 23/02/2015 |
Ion VĂDUVA Born in 1958 Died on 6/11/2015 Heirs Elena VĂDUVA 1966 Carmen-Elena ANDREESCU 1985 Daniel-Ion VĂDUVA 1984 Dorin-Marian VĂDUVA 1988 Mälina-Petronela DUMITRESCU 1989 |
Târgu-Jiu Prison 28/07/2014 to 30/09/2015 1 year and 2 months and 3 days |
1.51-1.69 m² | overcrowding, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet | – | 3,000 | |
| 2. | 6752/16 07/06/2016 |
Viorel POPESCU 1976 |
Irina Maria Peter Bucharest |
Bucharest Police Station No. 4, Jilava, PoartaAlbă, Rahova, Giurgiu, Mărgineni, Baia Mare and Bistrița Prisons 29/08/2002 to 19/01/2016 13 years and 4 months and 22 days Jilava Prison 24/12/2019 – pending More than 1 year and 1 month and 26 days |
0.5-2.84 m² | overcrowding (save for 06/05/2009-07/05/2009), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, bunk beds, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water | 282 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/02/2016 to 23/12/2019 | 5,000 |
| 3. | 17491/16 26/04/2016 |
Marius-Iliuţă CISMARU 1975 |
Craiova Prison 06/11/2002 to 23/07/2012 9 years and 8 months and 17 days |
1.1-2 m² | overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, small courtyard, poor quality of food | 384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 14/11/2017 | 5,000 | |
| 4. | 17839/16 21/07/2016 |
George TRIFAN 1988 |
Ionela Mărgărit Bucharesy |
Brăila Police and Tichilești, Galați, Rahova and Tulcea Prisons 26/12/2008 to 23/07/2012 3 years and 6 months and 28 days |
1.2-2.96 m² | overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of storing facilities | 426 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 30/05/2018 | 3,000 |
| 5. | 18290/16 29/04/2016 |
Marian-Valentin STANCIU 1985 |
GheorghitaStanciu Suseni |
Pitești Police and Colibași, Rahova and Târgu Jiu Prisons 26/11/2008 to 23/07/2012 3 years and 7 months and 28 days |
0.47-3.42 m² | overcrowding, lack of an individual bed, lack of furniture, lack of fresh air and natural light, insufficient sanitary facilities, limited access to running water during summertime, poor hygienic conditions, poor quality of food, insects | 366 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 25/10/2017 | 3,000 |
| 6. | 19412/16 11/05/2016 |
Mugurel-Dionisie GEAMĂN 1973 |
Jilava Prison Hospital 10/11/2015 to 16/11/2015 7 days Jilava Prison Hospital 01/03/2016 to 07/03/2016 7 days Jilava Prison Hospital 15/11/2016 to 21/11/2016 7 days Jilava Prison Hospital 20/01/2017 to 06/02/2017 18 days |
2.5 m² | overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen | 54 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/02/2015 to 12/02/2015 and 21/10/2015 to 15/11/2017, with exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 | 1,000 | |
| 7. | 25957/16 19/09/2016 |
Mitică ENE 1975 |
Galați Prison 13/12/2019 to 16/08/2020 8 months and 4 days |
1.2 m² | overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water | 468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 18/07/2013 to 12/12/2019 | 1,000 | |
| 8. | 27754/16 10/01/2017 |
Costel RUSU 1989 |
Iași Prison 05/12/2019 to 14/04/2020 4 months and 10 days |
1,26 m² | overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food | 504 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 04/12/2019 | 1,000 | |
| 9. | 36505/16 07/09/2016 |
George LAZĂR 1980 |
Galaţi, Brăila and Tulcea Prisons 07/12/2019 to 03/02/2021 1 year and 1 month and 28 days |
1-1.13 m² | overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water | 318 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 25/06/2015 to 06/12/2019 | 3,000 | |
| 10. | 46559/16 04/11/2016 |
Năstase-Nicolae DIACONU 1975 |
Rahova Prison 30/01/2020 to 26/03/2020 1 month and 26 days Rahova Prison 23/10/2020 to17/11/2020 26 days |
2 m² | overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture | 486 days in compensationfor a total period ofdetention spent ininadequate conditions from 05/04/2013 to 23/12/2019 | 1,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply