Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BODORIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 27443/16 and 6 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 Bodorin 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 applications nos. 39158/16 and 24500/17, 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 above‑mentioned 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. 39158/16 and 24500/17 (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. 27443/16, 39158/16 and 24500/17, the applicants also raised 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 indicated 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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 27443/16
28/06/2016 |
Sebastian‑Bogdan
BODORIN 1981 |
|
Galați County Police Station; Galați and Jilava Prisons
02/03/2006 to 23/07/2012 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
0.90 – 2.57 m² | overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature | 5,000 | |
| 2. | 34706/16
06/07/2016 |
Gabriel Cătălin
BOBEANU 1975 |
|
Pitești County Police Station; Mioveni Prison
25/02/2012 to 03/05/2012 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)
Mioveni, Târgu‑Jiu, Deva, Drobeta‑Turnu Severin and Ploiești Prisons 09/05/2012 to 29/08/2017 5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s) |
2.09 – 2.52 m²
1.59 – 2.70 m² |
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of potable water | 5,000 | |
| 3. | 37584/16
27/07/2016 |
Sorin
IONIŢĂ 1966 |
|
Bucharest Police detention facility no. 22; Rahova Prison; Rahova Prison Hospital
21/07/2011 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 3 day(s) |
1.89 – 2.93 m² | overcrowding (save for 27/02/2012 – 05/03/2012), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell | 3,000 | |
| 4. | 39158/16
26/07/2016 |
Constantin
PENCIU 1984 |
|
Tulcea Prison
29/11/2011 to 23/07/2012 7 month(s) and 25 day(s) |
2.05 m² | overcrowding | 408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions for the period from 24/07/2012 to 14/03/2018 | 1,000 |
| 5. | 24429/17
22/04/2017 |
Mirela‑Alexandra
CIUCĂ 1973 |
Doru Ristea
Bucharest |
Bucharest Central Arrest; Ploieşti – Târgşorul Nou and Craiova Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital
08/08/2011 to 06/04/2015 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 30 day(s) Jilava Prison Hospital 10/04/2015 to 26/01/2017 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 17 day(s) |
1.54 – 2.82 m²
2.57 – 2.63 m² |
overcrowding (save for 05/09/2013 – 03/10/2013, 24/07/2014 – 06/04/2015, 02/11/2016 – 09/12/2016), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities | 5,000 | |
| 6. | 24500/17
20/03/2017 |
Ionuț Bogdan
FĂRCAȘ 1991 |
Ioan Cătălin
Daniel Trif Satu Mare |
Salaj County Police Station; Gherla and Oradea Prisons
28/09/2011 to 23/07/2012 9 month(s) and 26 day(s) Arad Prison 24/07/2015 to 08/10/2015 2 month(s) and 15 day(s) Arad Prison 20/10/2015 to 07/01/2016 2 month(s) and 19 day(s) Arad Prison 27/05/2016 to 31/10/2016 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) Arad and Satu Mare Prisons 13/12/2016 to 23/03/2017 3 month(s) and 11 day(s) Satu Mare Prison 16/05/2018 to 27/11/2019 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s) |
1 – 2.37 m²
–
–
–
2.43 m²
2.10 -2.29 m² |
overcrowding (save for 24/07/2015 – 08/10/2015, 20/10/2015 – 07/01/2016, 27/05/2016 – 31/10/2016, 13/12/2016 – 13/02/2017), bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light | 450 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions, during the period from 24/07/2012 to 27/11/2019 (except for the periods indicated in column no. 5 and the short periods spent in transit rooms/prison hospital) | 3,000 |
| 7. | 13981/18
30/04/2018 |
Adrian‑Dumitru
LĂCĂTUŞ 1991 |
|
Gherla Prison
24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) |
1.63 -2.95 m² | overcrowding (save for 10/02/2020 – 20/02/2020, 03/07/2020 – 30/07/2020), lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply