Last Updated on November 30, 2023 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF FÎNAŢI v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 14917/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fînaţi 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 9 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 August 2016.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention as set out in the appended table.
THE LAW
I. THE LOCUS STANDI
5. On 26 October 2020, after the communication of the case, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant, Mr Fînați, had died on 4 September 2020. On the same date, the applicant’s representative, also acting as the legal representative of the applicant’s heirs, Mr Dávid-Adrian Fînaţi and Ms Rebeka Fînaţi, confirmed the heirs’ intention to pursue the present application. A copy of the inheritance certificate attesting that Mr Dávid-Adrian Fînaţi and Ms Rebeka Fînaţi are the applicant’s sole children and heirs was submitted to the Court.
6. The Government objected, arguing that the complaints related to conditions of detention have a strictly personal character and cannot be pursued by heirs; they added that in any event, the alleged heirs had not submitted any documents to prove their legal standing as heirs.
7. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the heirs and that the applicant’s heirs have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016). The Government’s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected.
8. Accordingly, the Court decides that Mr Dávid-Adrian Fînaţi and Ms Rebeka Fînaţi have standing to continue the proceedings on behalf of late Mr Fînaţi to whom it will continue to refer in the present judgment as the applicant.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. On 27 May 2020, after the communication of the case, the Government submitted a friendly settlement declaration. Following the applicant’s death and the Government’s objection to the applicant’s heirs’ request to pursue the application, on 20 November 2020 the Court took note that there is no basis for reaching a friendly settlement.
10. On 25 November 2020, without being invited to do so, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration in respect of the late applicant. Given that the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government does not take note of the applicant’s death and does not recognise the pursuit of the application by the applicant’s heirs, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
12. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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).
13. 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.
14. 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 applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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 sum indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Holds that Mr Dávid-Adrian Fînaţi and Ms Rebeka Fînaţi have standing to pursue the application on behalf of the late applicant, Mr Fînaţi;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;
3. Declares the application admissible;
4. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, jointly, the applicant’s heirs, Mr Dávid-Adrian Fînaţi and Ms Rebeka Fînaţi, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
| 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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1] |
| 14917/16
03/08/2016 |
Vasile-Adrian FÎNAŢI
1989 Deceased in 2020 Heirs: Dávid-Adrian FÎNAŢI 2015 Rebeka FÎNAŢI 2018 |
Tünde Moga
Gheorgheni |
Miercurea Ciuc, Aiud,
Târgu Mureș, Codlea and Deva (Bârcea Mare) Prisons 13/01/2016 to 01/02/2017 1 year(s) and 20 day(s) Codlea Prison 26/05/2017 to 04/10/2017 4 month(s) and 9 day(s) |
1.34 – 2.67 m² | overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture | 3,000,
to be paid jointly to the two heirs |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply