CASE OF PETRE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA – 15932/17 and 10 others

Last Updated on January 18, 2024 by LawEuro

European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PETRE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 15932/17 and 10 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 Petre 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 principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

6. As regards the admissibility of applications nos. 28276/17, 61282/19, 34995/20 and 48520/20, 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.

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. The Court therefore finds that the relevant parts of applications nos. 28276/17, 61282/19, 34995/20 and 48520/20 (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.

8. In addition, the Government argued that all the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as 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.

9. 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).

10. However, the applicants either ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021 or continue to be held in such conditions (for further details see appended table). Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of those periods indicated in the table below and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances considering their situations.

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15. In applications nos. 15932/17, 54421/17, 16892/20 and 47867/20 the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during other periods.

16. 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

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 for the periods specified 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	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.	15932/17 17/08/2017	Dragoș-Ionuț PETRE 1989		Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) Prison 24/12/2019 to 06/09/2020 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)	1.42 – 2.26 m²	overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack or inadequate furniture		1,000
2.	28276/17 03/04/2017	Andrei-Anton VERDEŞ 1986	Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare	Oradea Prison 24/12/2019 to 23/09/2020 9 month(s) Oradea Prison 03/10/2020 to 29/09/2021 11 month(s) and 27 day(s) (the applicant is still in detention in another detention facility)	2.17 – 2.89 m²	overcrowding (save for the periods between 24/12/2019-17/09/2020, 03/10/2020-08/10/2020, and 28/04/2021-18/06/2021), bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower	348 days in compensation for a total period of 1,745 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 01/07/2014 – 23/12/2019	3,000
3.	54421/17 21/07/2017	Gheorghe-Zobar STAN 1985		Botoșani and Iași Prisons 09/03/2021 pending More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 5 day(s)	2.85 m²	overcrowding (save for the period between 09/03/2021-12/03/2021), no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen		3,000
4.	61282/19 24/06/2020	Sorin ABUCULESEI 1974	Sava Dragomir Tomaşeschi Iasi	Iași Prison 10/01/2020 pending More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)	–	infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air	42 days in compensation for a total period of 222 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 15/05/2019 – 23/12/2019	3,000
5.	16892/20 08/07/2020	Gabriel-Ciprian MITOC 1983		Oradea and Iași Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 19/11/2019 to 14/04/2020 4 month(s) and 27 day(s) Oradea and Iași Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 15/05/2020 to 30/09/2020 4 month(s) and 16 day(s)	2,33 – 2,36 m²	overcrowding (save for the period between 09/07/2020-30/09/2020), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food		1,000
6.	34995/20 02/09/2020	Cătălin-Dobrică HAIDU 1988		Galați, Arad, Oradea and Gherla Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s)	2.17 – 2.91 m²	overcrowding (save for multiple short periods throughout the applicant’s detention), lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents	132 days in compensation for a total period of 761 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 02/08/2017 – 23/12/2019	3,000
7.	39544/20 29/09/2020	Ion GOAGĂ 1972		Jilava Prison 24/12/2019 to 21/10/2021 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Jilava Prison 28/10/2021 pending More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 day(s)	1.69 – 2.94 m²	overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light		3,000
8.	45947/20 23/03/2021	Romulus CĂTANĂ 1994		Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc, Aiud and Arad Prisons 24/12/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s)	1.93 – 2.79 m²	overcrowding (save for the periods between 29/01/2020-11/02/2020, 20/02/2020-03/03/2020, 13/03/2020-10/05/2021, and 15/05/2021-14/06/2021), bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell		3,000
9.	47867/20 30/12/2020	Ionuţ-Daniel PIETRARU 1986		Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) and Ploiești Prisons 10/08/2022 pending More than 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s)	1.75 – 2.31 m²	overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell		3,000
10.	48520/20 24/11/2020	Vasile-Iulian BORICEANU 1975		Codlea, Timișoara and Găești Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 24/12/2019 to 05/09/2022 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)   (the applicant continues being detained in another detention facility)	2.11 – 2.94 m²	overcrowding (save for the periods between 12/10/2020-19/11/2020, 02/02/2020-17/03/2020, 09/04/2021-16/10/2021, and 08/12/2021-24/05/2022), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient	246 days in compensation for a total period of 1,239 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 27/05/2016 – 23/12/2019	3,000
11.	55853/20 09/12/2020	Vasile HALIP 1968		Găești Prison 24/12/2019 to 28/11/2020 11 month(s) and 5 day(s)	2.65 m²	overcrowding (save for the periods between 12/05/2020-15/06/2020, and 03/09/2020-28/11/2020), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient quantity of food		1,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.