Last Updated on April 13, 2023 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LAZĂR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 33430/16 and 3 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lazăr and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2023,
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:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. In applications nos. 33430/16 and 45760/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the 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 applications nos. 33430/16 and 45760/16, are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible 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 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. 42410/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention.
15. The Court has examined application no. 42410/16 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.
16. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.”
18. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 33430/16, 42410/16 and 45760/16 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table;
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 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
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. | 33430/16 01/08/2016 |
Sorin LAZĂR 1987 |
Galaţi, Rahova and Tulcea Prisons 04/02/2010 to 23/07/2012 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 20 day(s) |
1,20-2,79 m² | Overcrowding (save for 07/07/2011-23/08/2011), mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water | 330 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 16/01/2018 | 3,000 | |
| 2. | 42410/16 17/08/2016 |
Liviu ANGHEL 1958 |
Galaţi Prison 02/12/2011 to 26/06/2012 6 month(s) and 25 day(s) |
2.57 m² | Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 1,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply