Last Updated on May 27, 2022 by LawEuro
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”).
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF APETRE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 32526/16 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 May 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Apetre 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 May 2022,
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 principally 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 loss of victim status by the applicants 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.
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 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, §§ 122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 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, (including its findings in the recent case of Polgar v Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-97, 20 July 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the appended table below, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 38868/16, 41603/16, 67062/16, 78197/16, 79/17 and 2426/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the abovementioned applications 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, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
18. The Court further 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, for the periods 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 for the periods specified in the appended table below;
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 25 May 2022, 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 |
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. | 32526/16 31/05/2016 |
Iuliana APETRE 1966 |
Salonta Police Station; Bihor County Police Station; Oradea, Ploiești – Târgușorul Nou and Arad Prisons 19/03/2008 to 18/07/2011 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) Arad Prison 26/07/2011 to 05/07/2012 11 month(s) and 10 day(s) Arad Prison 13/07/2012 to 23/07/2012 11 day(s) Gherla Prison 14/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s) |
1.82 – 1.85 m² | passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of toiletries overcrowding (save for the period 24/02/2012 – 23/07/2012) |
534 days in compensation for a total period of 2,676 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 13/12/2019 in Arad and Gherla Prisons | 5,000 |
| 2. | 35741/16 07/06/2016 |
Alexandru HORVATH 1983 |
Arad County Police Station and Arad Prison 12/06/2015 to 04/05/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
– | lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 90 days in compensation for a total period of 467 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 04/05/2017 to 14/08/2018 in Timișoara Prison | 3,000 |
| 3. | 35804/16 11/07/2016 |
Laurențiu GRIGORAȘ 1986 |
Bacău, Giurgiu, Bucharest – Rahova, Iași, Galați, Constanța – Poarta Albă and Arad Prisons 19/02/2008 to 23/07/2012 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) |
1.64 – 2.87 m² | overcrowding (save for the periods 24-27/03/2009, 12/08/2010 – 22/11/2010 and 07/05/2012 – 05/06/2012), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen | 522 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 04/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Iași, Galați and Tulcea Prisons | 3,000 |
| 4. | 38868/16 27/07/2016 |
Gabriel CRISTEA-STĂNCUNĂ 1972 |
Bucharest – Jilava Prison 20/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) |
– | overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 258 days in compensation for a total period of 1,306 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/12/2015 to 19/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Bucharest – Rahova and Bucharest – Jilava Prisons | 3,000 |
| 5. | 41603/16 07/11/2016 |
Felician-Vasile GHERGHEL 1960 |
Gherla Prison 02/11/2007 to 23/07/2012 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
1.35 – 2.57 m² | overcrowding (save for the period 26/04/2009 – 25/06/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 450 days in compensation for a total period of 2,251 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 27/11/2018, including all the periods spent in Gherla Prison | 3,000 |
| 6. | 47047/16 06/02/2017 |
Gicu SÎMBETEANU 1963 |
Codlea Prison 24/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s) |
2 m² | overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower | 282 days in compensation for the period of 1,461 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 30/09/2015 to 23/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Brașov County Police Station, Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons | 3,000 |
| 7. | 67062/16 04/12/2016 |
Petru-Pavel ANTI 1985 |
Iași County Police Station; Iași, Timișoara, Arad, Bucharest – Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons 10/04/2006 to 28/11/2014 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s) Bucharest – Rahova, Giurgiu and Iași Prisons 05/12/2014 to 09/10/2015 10 month(s) and 5 day(s) Iași, Giurgiu, Mărgineni and Bacău Prisons 15/10/2015 to 12/09/2016 10 month(s) and 29 day(s) Iași and Mărgineni Prisons 24/12/2019 to 28/02/2022 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s) |
1.26 – 2.33 m² | overcrowding (save for multiple short periods between 27/01/2016 and 09/09/2016), lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient quantity of food | 234 days in compensation for a total period of 1,181 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 13/09/2016 to 23/12/2019 in Bacău, Mărgineni, Bucharest – Rahova and Iași Prisons | 5,000 |
| 8. | 78197/16 03/02/2017 |
Nicolae-Alin BRATIMA 1970 |
Dej Prison Hospital 19/12/2013 to 23/12/2013 5 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 29/04/2015 to 04/05/2015 6 day(s) Gherla Prison and Dej Prison Hospital 04/07/2015 to 10/07/2015 7 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital; Gherla and Aiud Prisons 29/07/2015 to 03/09/2015 1 month(s) and 6 day(s) Aiud and Gherla Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 23/10/2015 to 17/03/2016 4 month(s) and 24 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 17/05/2016 to 30/05/2016 14 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 07/10/2016 to 02/11/2016 27 day(s) Gherla Prison 08/11/2016 to 24/11/2016 17 day(s) Gherla and Aiud Prisons 06/12/2016 to 25/04/2017 4 month(s) and 20 day(s) Gherla, Aiud and Oradea Prisons 02/05/2017 to 20/04/2018 11 month(s) and 19 day(s) Oradea and Gherla Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 23/04/2018 to 19/07/2018 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) Oradea Prison 11/09/2018 to 16/10/2018 1 month(s) and 6 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital; Oradea and Aiud Prisons 25/10/2018 to 24/04/2019 6 month(s) |
– | overcrowding (save for some of the periods mentioned in column no 4), no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light | 252 days in compensation for a total period of 1,285 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 23/12/2019, including for the detention spent in Aiud, Gherla and Oradea Prisons, with the exception of the periods indicated in column no. 4 | 3,000 |
| 9. | 79/17 13/02/2017 |
Florin PĂTLĂGICĂ 1976 |
Botoșani Prison 25 periods during 01/09/2016 and 31/12/2020 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
1.84 – 2.85 m² | overcrowding (save for the periods 21/02/2020 – 10/03/2020 and 23/06/2020 – 07/08/2020), poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen | 246 days in compensation for a total period of 1,251 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 06/09/2013 and 23/12/2019, including for the detention spent in Vaslui and Botoșani Prisons, with the exception of the periods indicated in column no. 4 | 3,000 |
| 10. | 2426/17 02/02/2017 |
Lucian TURBATU 1958 |
Mărgineni and Ploiești (Ploiești-Berceni) Prisons 12/06/2009 to 23/07/2012 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) |
1.39 – 1.59 m² | overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food | 396 days in compensation for a total period of 2,008 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 and 22/01/2018, covering all the detention spent in Mărgineni and Ploiești Prisons | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply