European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application nos. 41762/15 and 9 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 July 2020

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

In the case of Iancu and Others v. Romania,

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

          Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
          Georges Ravarani,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2020,

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 under Article 3 of the Convention 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION No. 41762/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  In application no. 41762/15 the Government submitted an unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95 § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

8.  In application no. 17686/16, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicant’s loss of victim status for his detention as of 24 July 2012 since they claimed that he was afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for this part of his detention.

9.  The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of 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). This remedy was available to the applicant in application no. 17686/16. Indeed, the applicant was afforded adequate redress for the period of detention from 24 July 2012 to 26 October 2017, the date of his release from prison.

10.  Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that this part of application no. 17686/16 is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

11.  In applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17, the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six‑month time-limit, claiming that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged out of time.

12.  The Court observes that in application no. 17686/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Colibași Prison which ceased on 16 August 2004 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 19 April 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

13.  Moreover, the Court notes that in application no. 36689/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Galați Prison which ceased on 11 May 2015 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 22 July 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

14.  The Court further observes that in application no. 5273/17 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention period in Sălaj County Police Arrest and Satu Mare Prison ceased on 12 June 2015 by his transfer to other prison facilities in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 6 January 2017, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

15.  Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

17.  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.

18.  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.

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

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20.  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.”

21.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

22.  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 complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 17686/16, 36689/16 and 5273/17 inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose 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 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 30 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                          Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                       President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)