{"id":21786,"date":"2023-11-30T10:46:49","date_gmt":"2023-11-30T10:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21786"},"modified":"2023-11-30T10:46:49","modified_gmt":"2023-11-30T10:46:49","slug":"case-of-finati-v-romania-14917-16","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21786","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF F\u00ceNA\u0162I v. ROMANIA – 14917\/16"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF F\u00ceNA\u0162I v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 14917\/16)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 November 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of F\u00eena\u0163i v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAnne Louise Bormann, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 3 August 2016.<\/p>\n

2. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention as set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE\u00a0LOCUS STANDI<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. On 26 October 2020, after the communication of the case, the applicant\u2019s representative informed the Court that the applicant, Mr\u00a0F\u00eena\u021bi, had died on 4 September 2020. On the same date, the applicant\u2019s representative, also acting as the legal representative of the applicant\u2019s heirs, Mr\u00a0D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00eena\u0163i and Ms Rebeka F\u00eena\u0163i, confirmed the heirs\u2019 intention to pursue the present application. A copy of the inheritance certificate attesting that Mr D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00eena\u0163i and Ms Rebeka F\u00eena\u0163i are the applicant\u2019s sole children and heirs was submitted to the Court.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

7. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the heirs and that the applicant\u2019s 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.\u00a013421\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037-42, 12\u00a0January 2016). The Government\u2019s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected.<\/p>\n

8. Accordingly, the Court decides that Mr D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00eena\u0163i and Ms\u00a0Rebeka F\u00eena\u0163i have standing to continue the proceedings on behalf of late Mr\u00a0F\u00eena\u0163i to whom it will continue to refer in the present judgment as the applicant.<\/p>\n

II. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

9. On 27 May 2020, after the communication of the case, the Government submitted a friendly settlement declaration. Following the applicant\u2019s death and the Government\u2019s objection to the applicant\u2019s heirs\u2019 request to pursue the application, on 20 November 2020 the Court took note that there is no basis for reaching a friendly settlement.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s death and does not recognise the pursuit of the application by the applicant\u2019s heirs, the Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v.\u00a0Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a075, ECHR 2003-VI).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

12. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant\u2019s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122\u201141, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n

13. In the leading case of Rezmive\u0219 and Others v.\u00a0Romania, (nos.\u00a061467\/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s conditions of detention were inadequate.<\/p>\n

15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Rezmive\u0219 and Others, cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Holds that Mr D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00eena\u0163i and Ms Rebeka F\u00eena\u0163i have standing to pursue the application on behalf of the late applicant, Mr\u00a0F\u00eena\u0163i;<\/p>\n

2. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay, jointly, the applicant\u2019s heirs, Mr\u00a0D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00eena\u0163i and Ms Rebeka F\u00eena\u0163i, 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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n

(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nFacility<\/strong><\/p>\n

Start and end date<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duration<\/strong><\/td>\n

Sq. m per inmate<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific grievances<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
14917\/16<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2016<\/td>\n

Vasile-Adrian F\u00ceNA\u0162I<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/p>\n

Deceased in 2020<\/p>\n

Heirs:<\/p>\n

D\u00e1vid-Adrian F\u00ceNA\u0162I<\/strong><\/p>\n

2015\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rebeka F\u00ceNA\u0162I<\/strong><\/p>\n

2018<\/td>\n

T\u00fcnde Moga<\/p>\n

Gheorgheni<\/td>\n

Miercurea Ciuc, Aiud,<\/p>\n

T\u00e2rgu Mure\u0219, Codlea and<\/p>\n

Deva (B\u00e2rcea Mare) Prisons<\/p>\n

13\/01\/2016 to<\/p>\n

01\/02\/2017<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and 20 day(s)<\/p>\n

Codlea Prison<\/p>\n

26\/05\/2017 to<\/p>\n

04\/10\/2017<\/p>\n

4 month(s) and 9 day(s)<\/td>\n

1.34 – 2.67 m\u00b2<\/td>\novercrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects\/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture<\/td>\n3,000,<\/p>\n

to be paid jointly to the two heirs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n