Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MUREŞANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 26176/16 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mureşanu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 August 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.
7. As regards the admissibility of the applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status for certain periods of detention specified in the appended table because adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences was afforded 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). The Court therefore finds that the relevant parts of applications nos. 47561/16, 10868/18 and 10870/18 (details described in the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicants were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of their detention, specified in the appended table. Those parts of the applications must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention. The Court dismisses the Government’s similar objection related to the victim status of some other applicants as not supported by evidence.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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 indicated in the appended table, were inadequate.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 10870/18 the applicant also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention during another period.
14. 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.
15. 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
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 there has been 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 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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 per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 26176/16
08/06/2016 |
Alin MUREŞANU
1992 |
Bumbar Nicolae
Constanța |
Constanța County Police Station; Poarta Albă, Rahova, Slobozia and Valea Seacă Prisons
06/11/2012 to 01/08/2016 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 27 day(s) |
1.71 -2.34 m² | overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet
|
3,000 | |
| 2. | 64059/16
20/10/2016 |
Marius-Daniel RUSU
1974 |
|
Colibași (Mioveni) Prison Hospital,
Rahova, Arad and Timișoara Prisons 23/06/2014 pending More than 8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28 day(s) |
1.77 –
2.77 m² |
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
|
5,000 | |
| 3. | 55041/17
28/08/2017 |
Vasile-Ovidiu SASU
1982 |
|
Botoșani and Iași Prisons
17/03/2015 to 24/10/2017 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
1.23 -1.66 m² | overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light | 3,000 | |
| 4. | 78499/17
01/11/2017 |
Cristinel-Nicușor STROE
1990 |
Olteanu Ionel
Bucuresti |
Tulcea and Brăila Prisons
24/12/2019 to 26/05/2020 5 month(s) and 3 day(s) |
1.62 -2.64 m² | infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food | 1,000 | |
| 5. | 10868/18
19/02/2018 |
Richard-Iulian GÖPFRICH
1981 |
Trif Nicoleta
Arad |
Arad Prison
10/12/2016 to 11/01/2017 1 month(s) and 2 day(s) |
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air | 72 days for the period between 12/01/2017 -17/01/2018 in accordance with law no. 169/2017 concerning the compensatory remedy. | 1,000 | |
| 6. | 10870/18
19/02/2018 |
Călin COVACI
1977 |
Trif Nicoleta
Arad |
Arad Prison
16/06/2016 to 11/01/2017 6 month(s) and 27 day(s) Arad Prison 29/03/2017 to 07/02/2018 10 month(s) and 10 day(s) |
3.12-3.67 m²
|
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking
|
18 days for the periods between 31/05/2016 -15/06/2016 and 12/01/2017 -28/03/2017 in accordance with law no. 169/2017 concerning the compensatory remedy. | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply