Last Updated on July 20, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF NICU FERARU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 58566/15 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 July 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nicu Feraru 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 29 June 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 under Article 3 of the Convention 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 under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
7. As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 58566/15 and 16881/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of the victim status by the applicants for certain 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 the 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 abovementioned applicants, 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 certain parts of applications nos. 58566/15 and 16881/16 (see for the relevant details the appended table) 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 the details of which are indicated 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, 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 for the periods indicated 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. 16881/16 and 23925/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to other periods of their detention in poor conditions.
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 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.
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;
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 20 July 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. | 58566/15 04/01/2016 |
Nicu FERARU 1974 |
Bacău County Police Station 03/07/2014 to 28/08/2014 1 month(s) and 26 day(s) |
<3 m² | overcrowding, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light | 270 days in compensation for a total period of 1,385 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 29/08/2014 – 13/06/2018 | 1,000 | |
| 2. | 16881/16 17/08/2016 |
Volinaș CALLO 1969 |
Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare |
Timișoara, Jilava, Craiova, Gherla, Rahova, Baia Mare and Satu Mare Prisons 01/10/2009 to 21/12/2016 7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s) Arad and Gherla Prisons 23/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
1.32 – 2.88 m² | overcrowding (save for the period starting with 23/12/2019 and ongoing), bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 168 days in compensation for a total period of 889 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 17/07/2017 – 22/12/2019 | 5,000 |
| 3. | 23925/16 24/05/2016 |
Dorin DRAGOȚOIU 1972 |
Târgu-Jiu and Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prisons 08/04/2016 to 13/12/2016 8 month(s) and 6 day(s) |
<3 m² | overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower | 1,000 | ||
| 4. | 39104/16 29/08/2016 |
Dorel Valentin KARDOȘ 1976 |
Baia Mare Prison 12/02/2015 to 17/08/2016 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s) |
1.53 – 2.35 m² | overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 3,000 | ||
| 5. | 47224/16 06/09/2016 |
Agneș TOADER 1980 |
Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) Prison 03/04/2015 to 28/09/2016 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 day(s) |
1.05 – 1.58 m² | overcrowding (save for the period between 29/12/2015-28/09/2016), mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply