Last Updated on November 30, 2023 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ALBESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 23686/16 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Albescu 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, 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 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. 23686/16 and 35651/19 (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.
9. As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 23686/16, 31540/16, 9841/17 and 2968/21 the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, because an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at the domestic level, and invited the Court to declare these applications inadmissible.
10. The Court recalls that in Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-96, 20 July 2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles 1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer, when they lodged their action, held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v. Romania (dec.), no. 122/17, §§ 30-33, 15 November 2022).
11. However, the applicants in applications nos. 23686/16, 31540/16, 9841/17 and 2968/21 either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021 when the civil tort claim became an effective remedy or continue to be held in such conditions. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations.
12. Turning to those 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).
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 applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In applications nos. 35651/19 and 2968/21 the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention during another period.
17. 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.
18. 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
19. 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;
(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 30 November 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. | 23686/16
01/08/2016 |
Costel ALBESCU
1994 |
|
Poarta Albă Prison Hospital
07/01/2013 to 12/02/2013 1 month(s) and 6 day(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 20/02/2013 to 19/03/2013 1 month(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 29/05/2013 to 21/06/2013 24 day(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 06/09/2013 to 24/09/2013 19 day(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 01/04/2014 to 22/04/2014 22 day(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 02/07/2014 to 15/07/2014 14 day(s) Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 08/10/2014 to 27/10/2014 20 day(s) Tichilești Prison 28/10/2014 to 06/03/2015 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Poarta Albă Prison Hospital 20/03/2017 to 28/03/2017 9 day(s) |
|
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, insufficient number of sleeping places
|
282 days of compensation for a period of 1,439 days spent in improper conditions, in accordance with law no. 169/2017 concerning the compensatory remedy, save for the periods of detention indicated in column no. 5. | 1,000 |
| 2. | 31540/16
11/07/2016 |
Onoriu-Petru-Pavel RADU
1984 |
|
Baia Mare County Police Station; Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons
26/04/2012 to 23/07/2012 2 month(s) and 28 day(s) |
1.54-1.71 m² | overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell | 1,000 | |
| 3. | 9841/17
19/04/2017 |
Ion URMUZ
1966 |
|
Bucharest General Police Inspectorate, Bucharest Police detention facility no. 20, Rahova, Jilava and Giurgiu Prison Hospitals, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons
19/05/2004 to 23/07/2012 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s) Giurgiu Prison 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s) |
1.22-2.90 m²
|
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 5,000 | |
| 4. | 16080/18
25/06/2018 |
Dorinel ȚICĂ
1969 |
|
Teleorman County Police Station, Giurgiu, Craiova, Arad Prisons
20/06/2011 to 23/07/2012 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s) |
1.46-2.90 m² | overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 3,000 | |
| 5. | 35651/19
06/08/2019 |
Dorel MOLDOVAN
1971 |
Maria-Teodora Pop
Oradea |
Dej Prison Hospital
19/07/2016 to 08/08/2016 21 day(s)
Dej Prison Hospital 19/10/2016 to 02/11/2016 15 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 22/09/2017 to 02/10/2017 11 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 07/12/2017 to 18/01/2018 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 26/03/2018 to 16/04/2018 22 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 26/07/2018 to 07/08/2018 13 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 10/09/2018 to 16/10/2018 1 month(s) and 7 day(s) Dej Prison Hospital 16/11/2018 to 03/01/2019 1 month(s) and 19 day(s) |
|
lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature
|
312 days of compensation for a period of 1,575 days spent in improper conditions, in accordance with law no. 169/2017 concerning the compensatory remedy, with the exception of the periods of detention indicated in column no. 5. | 1,000 |
| 6. | 2968/21
04/02/2021 |
Cezar-Andrei BĂLĂCIAN
1984 |
|
Botoșani Prison, Giurgiu Prison
12/06/2020 pending More than 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 3 day(s) |
1.83-2.90 m² | mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply