Last Updated on June 9, 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 CLOPOTAR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 3411/17 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Clopotar 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 19 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 some of 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, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as described 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 applications nos. 3411/17, 6045/17, 11459/17, 12040/17, 11210/18 and 30370/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 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 9 June 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
|
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. | 3411/17
14/07/2017 |
Nicolae CLOPOTAR
1991 |
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest |
Aiud Prison
06/12/2019 to 03/02/2020 1 month(s) and 29 day(s) |
– | overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen | 516 days in compensation for a total period of 2,507 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 08/09/2012 to 05/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Aiud Prison | 1,000 |
| 2. | 6045/17
06/02/2017 |
Florian LUNEAN
1977 |
|
Gherla and Aiud Prisons
05/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) |
2 – 2.66 m² | overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air | 330 days in compensation for a total period of 1,661 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 06/09/2014 and 05/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Aiud, Gherla and Giurgiu Prisons | 3,000 |
| 3. | 6258/17
05/01/2017 |
Adrian LĂCRARU
1986 |
Adrian Stancu
Oradea |
Bihor County Police Station and Oradea Prison
13/01/2015 to 20/09/2016 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
1.5 – 2.37 m² | overcrowding (save for the period 08/06/2015 – 20/09/2016), mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 3,000 | |
| 4. | 9471/17
06/05/2017 |
Sorin PAVEL
1968 |
Cezara-Maria Nichita-Costescu
Timișoara |
Arad Prison
11/03/2014 to 31/01/2019 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s) |
– | lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water | 102 days in compensation for a total period of 521 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 01/08/2013 to 11/03/2014 in Timiș County Police Station and Timișoara Prison | 3,000 |
| 5. | 11459/17
29/03/2017 |
Petrică COJOCARU
1989 |
|
Tulcea and Aiud Prisons
21/05/2012 to 23/07/2012 2 month(s) and 3 day(s) Tulcea Prison 23/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) |
1.39 – 2.6 m²
|
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature
|
3,000 | |
| 6. | 12040/17
06/02/2017 |
Ioan GHEREBENES
1974 |
Vasile Rareş Biro
Satu Mare |
Oradea Prison
13/04/2012 to 23/07/2012 3 month(s) and 11 day(s) Arad Prison 30/09/2015 to 09/05/2016 7 month(s) and 10 day(s) Satu Mare Prison 05/12/2019 to 28/04/2021 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s) |
2.04 – 2.07 m²
|
overcrowding (save for the period 30/09/2015 – 09/05/2016), lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food
|
486 days in compensation for a total period of 2,459 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 05/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons, except for Arad Prison | 3,000 |
| 7. | 60954/17
06/09/2017 |
Constantin-Lucian SPÎNU
1973 |
|
Bucharest – Jilava Prison
23/12/2019 pending More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s) |
1.94 m² | overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower | 3,000 | |
| 8. | 8413/18
08/05/2018 |
Constantin NECHITA
1986 |
|
Vaslui and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons
23/12/2019 to 01/09/2020 8 month(s) and 10 day(s) Miercurea Ciuc Prison 10/09/2020 to 08/02/2021 4 month(s) and 30 day(s) Miercurea Ciuc and Tulcea Prisons 14/04/2021 to 17/11/2021 7 month(s) and 4 day(s) |
2.36 – 2.86 m²
|
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
|
180 days in compensation for a total period of 908 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 28/03/2017 to 22/12/2019, including all the periods spent in Bacău, Tulcea, Mărgineni, Iași, Miercurea Ciuc and Vaslui Prisons | 3,000 |
| 9. | 11210/18
17/12/2018 |
Eugen CIMPOIEȘ
1954 |
|
Satu Mare Prison
Multiple periods from 05/01/2018 until 03/07/2019 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 10 day(s) |
–
|
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
|
54 days in compensation for a total period of 272 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 28/02/2017 to 03/07/2019, including partially the period spent in Satu Mare Prison | 3,000 |
| 10. | 30370/18
08/08/2018 |
Nicolae-Marian OCHIȘOR
1970 |
|
Bucharest – Rahova and Constanța – Poarta Albă Prisons
12/01/2012 to 24/07/2012 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) Giurgiu Prison 23/02/2017 to 24/05/2017 3 month(s) and 2 day(s) Giurgiu Prison 02/03/2018 pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) |
2.41 – 2.44 m²
|
overcrowding (save for the periods 28/02/2012 – 05/03/2012, 12/06/2012 – 21/06/2012, 23/02/2017 – 24/05/2017 and 02/03/2018 – 12/10/2020), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food
|
372 days in compensation for a total period of 1,883 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 02/03/2018, except for the period indicated in column no. 5 and for days spent in infirmary or transit rooms | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply