Last Updated on October 14, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PĂTROI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 38581/16 and 10 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pătroiand 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 ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 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 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, §§122-41, 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 caselaw 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 table appended bellow, 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.38581/16, 41914/16, 57510/16, 62644/16, 19411/17, 28475/17 and 78165/17, 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 Articles34 and35 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 Article35§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 sumsindicated 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, as specified in the appended table bellow;
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 13 October 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 by national authorities |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 38581/16
19/07/2016 |
Ionuț-Valentin PĂTROI
1987 |
Craiova Prison
14/11/2016 to 07/12/2016 24 day(s) Arad Prison 17/07/2017 to 14/12/2017 4 month(s) and 28 day(s) Tîrgu Jiu Prison 22/04/2020 to 24/08/2021 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 day(s) |
2.12-2.18 m² | infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding save for detention in Arad Prison and for 22/04-13/05/2020), mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature | 337 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 08/11/2013 to 07/11/2016, from 07/12//2016 to 17/07/2017 and from 14/12/2017 to 26/03/2019 | 3,000 | |
| 2. | 41914/16
11/08/2016 |
Petru VEZETEU
1960 |
Irina Maria Peter
Bucharest |
Giurgiu and PoartaAlbă Prisons
11/11/2010 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s) Jilava and PoartaAlbă Prisons 24/12/2019 to 14/11/2020 10 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
1.3 – 2 m² | overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, toilet and potable water, inadequate temperature | 534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019 | 3,000 |
| 3. | 57510/16
16/11/2016 |
George-Marian ZAI
1982 |
Dej Prison Hospital – a total of 91 days, distributed over several periods of time from 23/01/2014 to 13/12/2016
91 day(s) |
4 m² | lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of potable water | 252 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 09/01/2014 to 31/10/2017, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 | 1,000 | |
| 4. | 62644/16
21/11/2016 |
Marius CHIREA
1968 |
Craiova Prison
29/04/2014 to 12/05/2014 14 day(s) Craiova Prison 18/04/2016 to 30/05/2016 1 month(s) and 13 day(s) |
1,15-1,42 m² | overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 01/05/2013 to 16/11/2018, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 | 1,000 | |
| 5. | 7190/17
16/01/2017 |
Alexandru-Ovidiu CIRCA
1982 |
Nicoleta Trif
Arad |
Turnu Severin Police, Dej Prison Hospital and Craiova, DrobetaTurnuSeverin and Gherla Prisons
20/09/2011 to 23/07/2012 10 month(s) and 4 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital and Arad Prison 31/08/2012 to 26/11/2015 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) |
1.29-2.08 m² | overcrowding for certain periods of time, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food | 192 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 30/08/2012 and from 26/11/2015 to 10/07/2018 | 3,000 |
| 6. | 10973/17
02/03/2017 |
Laurențiu HORIA
1982 |
Târgu Jiu Prison
24/12/2019 to 17/03/2020 2 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature | 480 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 21/04/2013 to 23/12/2019 | 1,000 | ||
| 7. | 12530/17
20/06/2017 |
Jose Israel ARENAS RUIZ
1974 |
Claudia NadinaDacianaCândea
Timișoara |
Timișoara Prison
01/08/2015 to 17/12/2015 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)
Arad Prison 19/02/2016 to 18/02/2019 3 year(s) |
2-5.8 m² | overcrowding while in Timișoara Prison (2 m2), lack of or insufficient natural and electric light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell | 36 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 02/07/2015 to 01/08/2015 and from 17/12/2015 to 19/02/2016 | 3,000 |
| 8. | 19411/17
19/06/2017 |
Viorel-Florin ROȘU
1976 |
Cezara-Maria Nichita-Costescu
Timișoara |
Arad Prison
27/12/2016 to 06/11/2017 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) |
1.74 m² | overcrowding for 30/10-06/11/2017, lack of or insufficient natural light and fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell | 102 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 06/11/2017 to 19/04/2019 | 1,000 |
| 9. | 22087/17
08/03/2017 |
Sandor-David BERGER
1975 |
Sergiu-CătălinHercuț
Oradea |
Satu Mare Prison
24/12/2019 to 10/03/2020 2 month(s) and 16 day(s) |
1.72 m² | overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food | 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 16/02/2012 to 14/09/2016 and from 15/01/2018 to 23/12/2019 | 1,000 |
| 10. | 28475/17
02/05/2017 |
George TOMPAS
1980 |
Giurgiu Prison
27/02/2017 to 16/10/2017 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)
Giurgiu Prison 10/05/2018 to 05/09/2018 3 month(s) and 27 day(s) |
2.94 m² | overcrowding for certain periods of time, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature | 300 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/07/2013 to 05/09/2018, with the exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5 | 1,000 | |
| 11. | 78165/17
20/12/2017 |
Oprea PULBERE
1958 |
Bucharest Police, Jilava Prison Hospital and Rahova Prison
01/05/2011 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
2.14 m² | overcrowding while in Rahova Prison, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell | 390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 05/01/2018 | 3,000 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply