European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MATACHE v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 35621/16)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 May 2024

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

In the case of Matache v. Romania,

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

 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 April 2024,

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 14 July 2016.

2.  The Romanian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The applicant's details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention during the period specified in the appended table. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

6.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaint about the inadequate conditions of his detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicant, allowing him 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 this application inadmissible.

7.  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).

8.  However, the applicant ceased to be held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention before 13 January 2021 (for details see the appended table). Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his grievances.

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 this complaint. 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.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application 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 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

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