European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MOCANU v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 76888/13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

17 March 2022

 

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

In the case of Mocanu v. Romania,

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

          Armen Harutyunyan, President,
          Jolien Schukking,
          Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 February 2022,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 November 2013.

2.  The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application on 13 October 2015.

3.  The Government were informed that the case had been assigned to a Committee on 5 February 2019.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Focșani.

5.  On 16 March 2012 the applicant was placed in detention to serve a sentence of imprisonment of seven and a half years. He was repeatedly transferred between several prison facilities (further details in the appended table).

6.  According to the available medical reports, the applicant was “clinically healthy” when admitted to prison. He was later diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B, tuberculous pleurisy, skin rash, chronic hives, insect bites, oral thrush, obesity, and antisocial personality disorder. He received medical assistance according to treatment plans developed by doctors. Specific diet was prescribed to him as part of his treatment for hepatitis and tuberculosis and for preventing and limiting his allergic reactions.

7.  On 14 February 2017 he was released on probation.

THE LAW

I.        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He 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.”

9.  The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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, 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).

10.  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.

11.  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’s conditions of detention were inadequate.

12.  The complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in view of poor conditions of the applicant’s detention.

II.     REMAINING COMPLAINT

13.  With reference to Article 3 of the Convention the applicant also argued that he had developed several illnesses in prison due to poor conditions of his detention.

14.  The Government contested these allegations.

15.  The Court considers that the applicant’s allegations that he contracted several diseases in prison are not substantiated by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the chronic nature of some of his illnesses also raises doubt as to whether he had developed them in prison and as a result of his detention conditions. In these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the applicant’s medical condition was caused exclusively by his detention, or that the authorities can be held responsible for it (see Bahnă v. Romania, no. 75985/12, §§ 66-69, 13 November 2014; Cătălin Eugen Micu v. Romania, no. 55104/13, § 56, 5 January 2016; and Minculescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 7993/05, §§ 56-61, 13 November 2012). In any event, according to the medical records available, the applicant’s health had been regularly and thoroughly monitored and he had been provided with the appropriate treatment for his conditions. He has not argued that his health deteriorated over the period in question because of the absence of medical treatment.

16.  Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  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.”

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 sum indicated in the appended table.

19.  The Court further 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.      Declares the complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.      Holds that this complaint discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;

3.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;

(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.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                         Armen Harutyunyan

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)