Last Updated on January 18, 2024 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RIZESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 44636/16 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rizescu 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 14 December 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.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
4. 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
5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
6. As regards the admissibility of the applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of the victim status by the applicants for the 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.
7. 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.
8. However, due to the particular circumstances of the applicants’ detentions, they did not effectively benefit from the said remedy. Despite of the fact that the domestic authorities have acknowledged the breach of the Convention, adequate and effective redress has not been afforded. As such, the Court rejects the Government’s objection concerning the loss of the victim status by the applicants.
9. As regards the admissibility of application no. 32777/19, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaint about the inadequate conditions of his detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicant, allowing him to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at domestic level, and invited the Court to declare this application 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 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 applicant in application no. 32777/19 ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his grievances considering his situation.
12. Turning to the 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 during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In application no. 32777/19, the applicant also raised an additional complaint under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during another period.
17. The Court has examined this complaint 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, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 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
18. 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 application no. 32777/19 inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods indicated in the appended table;
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 18 January 2024, 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 |
Facility
Start and end date Duration |
Sq. m per inmate | Specific grievances | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 44636/16
24/08/2016 |
Adrian‑Mihai
RIZESCU 1994 |
Mioveni (Colibași) Prison
21/09/2015 to 17/11/2015 1 month(s) and 28 day(s) Mioveni (Colibași) and Târgu Jiu Prisons 20/11/2015 to 26/10/2017 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s) |
1.87 – 2.35 m²
1.69 – 2.61 m² |
overcrowding (only for 21/09/2015 – 17/11/2015; 20/11/2015 – 13/12/2016), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 3,000 |
| 2. | 883/18
03/05/2018 |
Svetoslav
DIMOV 1976 |
Giurgiu County Police Station; Giurgiu Prison
24/04/2017 to 14/01/2018 8 month(s) and 22 day(s) |
– | infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air | 1,000 |
| 3. | 32777/19
22/05/2019 |
Vasile Marius
ACSINIEI 1987 |
Iaşi and Galaţi Prisons
03/11/2017 to 25/10/2019 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s) |
– | mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food | 3,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply