European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

CASE OF GALAIDA AND COPOSCIU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Applications nos. 29732/07 and 41421/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

 




In the case of Galaida and Coposciu v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Nebojša Vučinić, President,
          Valeriu Griţco,
          Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against the Republic of Moldova 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 applications were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).

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 and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...”

7.  The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ 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, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-165, 10 January 2012). 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, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145-147 and 149).

8.  In the leading case of Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, 15 September 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  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.

10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, 15 September 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 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 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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı                                                                     Nebojša Vučinić
Deputy Registrar                                                                        President

 




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Facility Start and end date Duration	Sq. m. per inmate	Specific grievances	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
1.	29732/07 03/07/2007	Nicolae GALAIDA 16/10/1961	Dimitrov Iurie Taraclia	Prison no. 17 16/06/2007 to 25/03/2008 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)	4.48 m²	lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, overcrowding	3,000
2.	41421/07 04/09/2007	Vitalie COPOSCIU 26/06/1975	Gutu Tatiana Chisinau	Prison no. 13 03/02/2006 to 14/03/2006 1 month(s) and 12 day(s)   Prison no. 1 15/03/2006 to 08/08/2006 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)   Prison no. 13 09/08/2006 to 28/05/2007 9 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Prison no. 1 29/05/2007 to 25/02/2008 8 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Prison no. 3 19/09/2008 to 27/09/2008 9 day(s)   Prison no. 1 28/09/2008 to 28/02/2010 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)   Prison no. 1 05/10/2010 to 07/11/2010 1 month(s) and 3 day(s)   Prison no. 13 08/11/2010 to 20/01/2011 2 month(s) and 13 day(s)   Prison no. 1 21/01/2011 to 28/01/2011 8 day(s)   Prison no. 13 08/03/2011 to 18/03/2011 11 day(s)   Prison no. 1 09/03/2012 to 14/03/2012 6 day(s)   Prison no. 13 15/03/2012 to 25/06/2015 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)	1.5 m²       1.5 m²	overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (adequate) heating       poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating       overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food       overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of (adequate) heating       overcrowding, poor quality of food       overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food     overcrowding, poor quality of food         overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food       overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food     overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food     overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food     overcrowding, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food	14,100	800

 

 




---

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

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