BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF GOH v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 9643/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 June 2011
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Goh v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Santiago
Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 9643/03) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Singaporean national, Mr Yong Seng Goh (“the
applicant”), on 3 March 2003.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant complained, in particular, of the material conditions of
detention in three different prisons in Romania.
- On
8 September 2009 the President of the Third Section decided to
communicate to the Government the complaints concerning the
conditions of the applicant’s detention in the establishments
concerned. It was also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 §
1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant is a Singaporean citizen, born in 1958 and residing in
Romania. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Ploieşti
Prison.
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
8 March 2001, a robbery took place in the flat of a Chinese couple,
H.Z.Y. and Y.X. The two victims reported the incident to the police.
They indicated that three men had entered their flat, one of them
threatening H.Z.Y. with a knife. The same person had forced H.Z.Y.,
under the threat of knife, to write down a receipt by which he
recognised that he owed a debt of 5,000 US Dollars to another person.
- On
15 March 2001, the applicant and H.Z.Y. agreed to meet in a
restaurant in order to collect payment of part of the debt. After the
applicant had received from H.Z.Y. an envelope with money, police
officers had intervened and had arrested him. At the same time, the
police officers apprehended F.Y., who had been sitting outside the
restaurant closely following the movements of H.Z.Y. and the
applicant.
On
the same date, the police seized from the flats of the two accused
items related to the robbery, the knife used to threaten the victims,
a wallet and residence permit belonging to H.Z.Y, as well as the
stolen electronic equipment.
- In
one of the first statements given to the investigative authorities,
both accused denied the robbery.
- After
the prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant on charges
of robbery and blackmail and against F.Y on charges of robbery, the
case was referred to the Bucharest District Court (“the
District Court”).
- On
5 October 2001, the District Court heard from the victims,
two witnesses who had attended the search of the defendants’
flats, the applicant’s lawyer and both accused. F.Y. admitted
that he had committed the robbery, but indicated that the applicant
had not been involved. The applicant’s request to have three
additional witnesses heard (persons with whom he was sharing his
flat) was denied, as the court considered that their statements would
be made pro causa.
- By
a judgment of 9 October 2001, the District Court found the applicant
guilty of both charges and sentenced him to fifteen years’
imprisonment. It considered that F.Y.’s new statement did not
corroborate the other evidence. It noted that the applicant had not
been consistent in his statements and that there were contradictions
between the submissions of the two accused concerning how they knew
each other and why they had gone to the restaurant together on 15
March 2001. It considered that F.Y.’s new statement could be
explained by the high standing that the applicant had within the
Chinese community, as person in charge of obtaining the extension of
residence permits and recovery of monetary debts.
The
District Court applied the maximum sentence in the applicant’s
case, relying on the fact that during the trial he had displayed a
violent attitude, threatening the victims in Chinese while they were
testifying and taking into account his criminal record and the
circumstances in which the acts had been committed.
- The
applicant and F.Y. lodged appeals, the former alleging that he was
innocent and the latter asking for a milder sentence.
- On
13 May 2002, upon the applicant’s request, H.X.P., a new
witness, testified in front of the County Court, claiming that he had
been involved in the robbery and that the applicant had been the
victim of a trap.
- The
County Court dismissed both appeals by a decision of 20 May 2002.
After reviewing all of the evidence in the case file, it concluded
that H.X.P.’s statement was untrue, as it had not been
corroborated by the other evidence in the file.
- The
applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, alleging that he was
innocent and that he had not committed the alleged crimes. The
Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) denied
the request to have H.X.P. called as a witness once more. By a final
decision delivered on 3 September 2002, the appellate court upheld
the decisions of the lower courts. After reviewing all the evidence
available in the case file, including the statement made by H.X.P.,
the Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence pointed to the
applicant’s guilt and that H.X.P.’s statement had not
been corroborated by the rest of evidence.
- After
his final conviction, the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal,
which was dismissed by a final decision of the Court of Appeal on 12
October 2004.
B. Conditions of detention
- The
applicant has been in prison since the day of his arrest on 15 March
2001. He has been held in a number of different detention centres. No
information is available in respect of his place of detention before
13 June 2001. From the latter date until 20 July 2001 he was
detained in Jilava Prison. On the latter date he was transferred to
Rahova Prison, where he was held until 26 January 2009. He was then
transferred to Margineni Prison. On 19 June 2009 he was transferred
from that prison to Giurgiu Prison. By letter of 4 January 2011, he
informed the Court that he was transferred to Ploiesti Prison.
1. The applicant’s description of the conditions
of detention
- In
respect of the three establishments, the applicant alleged that he
had been kept in overcrowded cells, with poor hygiene conditions. In
addition, he described the situation in each of the establishments,
as detailed further below.
(a) Jilava Prison
- The
applicant complains that during the months of June and July 2001,
owing to extremely hot weather, the conditions in prison had been
unbearable: there had been forty to fifty people in one cell; two to
three prisoners had shared the same bed; he had had to share a bed
with another prisoner who had had many wounds on his skin; the water
had been of very poor quality, having been of a yellow colour,
smelling and containing worms. Sometimes, there had been no water –
either for drinking or for the toilet. The food had also been of very
poor quality.
(b) Rahova Prison
- On
20 July 2001 the applicant was transferred to Rahova Prison.
- Here,
in cells originally planned for ten prisoners (approximately 6 m
in length and 3 m wide), there had sometimes been between twelve and
fourteen prisoners. The quality of food had been poor.
- From
1 January 2007 the prisoners had no longer been allowed to receive
food by post and the only way of obtaining food had been to do so
from the prison shop, where the prices had been higher than normal
market prices. The applicant further alleged that the food normally
served had not included meat.
- The
applicant complained that money had often been stolen from letters
sent to prisoners and that using the bank transfer system had been
rather complicated and had taken a considerable time.
- He
alleged that between 2001 and 2006 he had been subjected to great
anxiety and stress because of abuses on the part of (masked) special
forces, who had stormed the cells, beaten the prisoners and stolen
items belonging to them.
(c) Mărgineni Prison
- The
applicant complained that in Mărgineni Prison, he had shared a
cell with a surface area of 48 sq. m with twenty-seven other
prisoners.
2. The Government’s description of the conditions
of detention
- The
Government provided official information, submitted by the National
Prison Administration (“NPA”), concerning the size of and
facilities in the cells that the applicant had occupied during his
detention, as well as the general detention conditions in the three
establishments.
- In
Jilava Prison, the applicant had been placed in cell no. 512, which
had had a surface area of 42.84 sq. m. The average number of
prisoners occupying the cell during the month of June 2001 had been
forty-five, and during the month of July, forty-nine. The cell had
been equipped with two squat toilets connected to the water
network and separated from the rest of the room by a wall. Fresh air
had been able to come in through the windows in the cell and toilet.
A laboratory analysis of water quality had not indicated that the
water had presented the characteristics described by the applicant.
The prisoners had been allowed to take one hot shower per week in
communal bathrooms available in each section of the prison, where
there had been between nineteen and twenty-three showers available.
The applicant had been allowed to walk outside the cell for thirty
minutes each day. The official documents did not give the exact
number of bunks per cell.
- In
Rahova Prison, the applicant had been placed in cells with an average
size of 21 sq. m and which had had ten bunk beds for a maximum of ten
detainees. The cells had also included a table, benches, a TV stand,
a wardrobe, shelves and a food storage space. A bathroom measuring
8.26 sq. m with cold water had been attached to the cell, separated
from the rest of the room by a wall and consisting of a shower, two
sinks and a toilet. Hot water had been available twice per week,
between midday and 2 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Each cell had had
a double window, while the bathroom and the food storage room had
each had one window.
The
detainees had been allowed to walk outside for one to three hours per
day and, upon their request, they had been given access to sports
fields twice a week.
The
prison had ensured detainees’ right to purchase different items
from a shop operated by a company and located inside the prison. The
prices had been regularly checked to ensure that they stayed within
the average prices charged by other companies nearby the prison.
Although
the applicant had had the right to take part in sports or
recreational activities, he had not joined in those activities.
- As
regards the applicant’s detention in Mărgineni Prison, the
applicant had been placed in cell no. 14, which had had a total
surface area of 42.12 sq.m. The cell had included twenty-seven bunk
beds and the number of detainees had never exceeded the number of
available beds. The average number of inmates in the cell had been
twenty-five during the months of February, March and May 2009 and
twenty-four during April 2009. The cell had also been equipped
with a few tables, a TV set belonging to the prison and storage
spaces for dishes and food.
A
bathroom measuring 7 sq. m had been attached to the cell, including
two toilets separated by a wall, a sink and a shower. Cold running
water had been available and it had been of drinking quality.
A
schedule approved by the penitentiary authorities had ensured the
availability of a shower twice a week.
The
applicant had been able to take part in outdoor sport activities for
one hour twice a week until 31 March 2009 and for two hours once a
week starting from 1 April 2009. The applicant had also been able to
walk outside the cell in one of the seven prison courtyards according
to a schedule approved by the penitentiary authorities.
- In
respect of the three prisons, the Government indicated that the cells
had had natural light and electricity. The inmates had been
responsible for cleaning their cells, using products put at their
disposal by the prison administration. Pest control measures and
insecticide treatments had been carried out regularly.
The
quality of drinking water had been regularly assessed. Food had been
prepared on a daily basis. The quality of the raw materials used for
the preparation of meals had been certified by reports attached to
the food provided by different suppliers.
C. Medical care in detention
-
The applicant alleged that he did not receive adequate medical
treatment for his various medical conditions and he did not receive
any treatment for anaemia. He alleged that in the period 2005-2007,
he made numerous requests to receive a dental prosthesis, which had
been ignored. In December 2007, he received a prosthesis, which
according to him was damaged.
- From
the information submitted to the case-file by the Government, based
on documents furnished by NPA, it appears that the applicant received
and currently still receives treatment for his various medical
conditions. None of the medical records indicates that the applicant
suffers from anaemia. In respect of the dental treatment, the medical
records indicate that a dental prosthesis has been prepared for him
and that between the date when he received it (27 December 2007) and
his transfer to Margineni prison on 26 January 2009, he did not
report to the medical staff any complaint regarding its quality.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant provisions of Law no. 23/1969 on the execution of sentences
are described in paragraphs 23 and 25 of the Năstase-Silivestru
v. Romania, (no. 74785/01, 4 October 2007).
- The
Government’s Emergency Ordinance no. 56 of 27 June 2003
(“Ordinance no. 56/2003”) regarding the rights of
prisoners states, in Article 3, that prisoners have the right to
bring legal proceedings before a court of first instance concerning
the implementing measures taken by the prison authorities in
connection with their rights. Ordinance no. 56/2003 has been repealed
and replaced by Law no. 275 of 20 July 2006, which has
restated the content of Article 3 mentioned above in Article 38,
which provides that a judge shall have jurisdiction over complaints
by convicted prisoners against measures taken by prison authorities
(see also Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, §§
21-23, 29 April 2008).
- The
Government submitted to the Court copies of judicial decisions
delivered by the domestic courts concerning the application of
Ordinance no. 56/2003 and Law no. 275/2006. The decisions mainly
concern complaints lodged by prisoners in respect of disciplinary
sanctions imposed on them by prison authorities, alleged lack of
adequate medical treatment, breaches of their rights to receive
visits, to correspondence, to confidentiality of telephone
conversations, to have walks outside their cell, to medical
assistance during transport to a courthouse, and the right to be
placed in a non-smoking cell. In one decision of 9 March 2006, a
domestic court noted that the cells in the relevant prison had been
designed to accommodate a large number of inmates and only the prison
infirmary had been able to accommodate a lower number of inmates.
Therefore, as the applicant in that case had not had any medical need
to be placed in the infirmary, he was required to remain in a large
cell. In another decision of 16 June 2006, a domestic court dismissed
a prisoner’s complaint concerning overcrowded cells and the
fact of having to share a bed with another person. The court’s
reasoning was that the claimant’s state of health had actually
improved since he had been placed in detention, he had received
adequate medical treatment and therefore that none of his rights had
been violated.
III. REPORTS ON THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN ROMANIAN
PRISONS
- The
relevant findings and recommendations of the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“the CPT”) are described in Bragadireanu
v. Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-76, 6 December
2007) and Artimenco v. Romania (no.
12535/04, §§ 22-23, 30 June 2009).
- The
CPT report published on 11 December 2008, following a visit to
different police detention facilities and prisons in Romania
(including Jilava Prison) conducted from 8 to 19 June 2006, indicated
overcrowding as a persistent problem. The same report concluded that
in the light of the deplorable material conditions of detention in
some of the cells of the establishments visited, the conditions of
detention could be qualified as inhuman and degrading.
In
the same report, the CPT declared itself gravely concerned by the
fact that a lack of beds remained a constant problem, not only in the
establishments visited but at national level, and that this had
remained the case since its first visit to Romania in 1999. The CPT
also welcomed the changes introduced in domestic legislation
providing for personal space of 4 sq. m for each prisoner. The
CPT therefore recommended that the Romanian authorities take the
necessary measures to ensure compliance with this requirement, as
well as to ensure that each detainee has his or her own bed.
- There
is no CPT report concerning Rahova Prison. However, a Romanian NGO,
APADOR-CH (Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania –
the Helsinki Committee) visited this establishment on 13 February
2009. The report prepared following this visit indicated that, based
on the information submitted by the authorities, the average personal
space for prisoners was 2.77 sq. m. The overcrowding was obvious when
visiting individual cells: one of the cells visited, measuring 18 sq.
m, had accommodated eleven prisoners, even though only ten beds had
been available. As regards the prison’s food, the report
indicated that only one detainee had complained about its quality and
that many prisoners had preferred to eat the food they received from
home or that they bought from the shop.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Complaint concerning the material conditions of
detention
- The
applicant complained of the material conditions of his detention in
Jilava, Rahova and Margineni Prisons. He relied in substance on
Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
1. Admissibility
(a) The parties’ submissions
- The
Government raised a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies, in so far as the applicant had not complained to
the authorities of the conditions of his detention on the basis of
Ordinance no. 56/2003 and subsequently on the basis of Law no.
275/2006. In addition, they pointed out that the applicant could have
lodged a civil law complaint seeking compensation for alleged
damages. The Government considered both remedies to be efficient,
sufficient and accessible.
- The
Government submitted a set of domestic decisions in support of their
observations (see paragraph 35 above). They further submitted that
the Court implicitly recognised that a civil action in damages
represents an effective remedy in its decision in Stan v. Romania
(dec.), (no. 6936/03, 20 May 2008).
- The
applicant submitted that his application to the Court dated from
2003, when Ordinance no. 56/2003 and Law no. 275/2006 had not been in
force. He further underlined that the domestic decisions sent by the
Government had all been delivered after 2005, which showed that no
such complaints had been registered beforehand.
(b) The Court’s assessment
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s complaint concerns the
material conditions of his detention and, in particular, overcrowding
and poor sanitary facilities. In this respect, it recalls that in
recent applications directed against Romania and concerning similar
complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of
this type of complaint, the legal actions indicated by the
Government, including the civil action in damages, do not constitute
an effective remedy (see Petrea, cited above, § 37; Eugen
Gabriel Radu v. Romania, no. 3036/04, § 23, 13 October 2009;
Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, § 49, 1 June 2010;
Cucolaş v. Romania, no. 17044/03,
§ 67, 26 October 2010; Ogică
v. Romania, no. 24708/03, § 35, 27 May 2010, and
Dimakos v. Romania, no. 10675/03, § 38, 6 July 2010).
- The
Court further notes that the domestic decisions submitted by the
Government in support of its plea of non-exhaustion relate to
specific rights of prisoners, such as the right to medical assistance
or the right to receive visits, but that they do not relate to
structural issues, such as overcrowding. Among the domestic decisions
submitted by the Government, in two of them the claimants raised
complaints concerning overcrowding and the fact of having to share a
bed with another inmate. The two complaints were dismissed, the first
with the reasoning that only the prison infirmary could accommodate a
lower number of inmates and the second with the reasoning that the
applicant’s health had actually improved during detention and
without any consideration of the points that he had relied upon
concerning the lack of an individual bed.
- The Court therefore concludes that these decisions do
not indicate how the legal actions proposed by the Government could
have afforded the applicant immediate and effective redress for the
purposes of his complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Marian
Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 12934/02, § 19, 16 July 2009, and
Ogică v. Romania, cited above, § 35).
It
therefore rejects the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies.
- The
Court considers it necessary to examine on its own motion whether the
applicant’s complaint was lodged within the six-month
time-limit.
- It
observes in this respect that the applicant raised a complaint
concerning the conditions of his detention and poor hygiene for the
first time by letter of 30 April 2003. He reiterated and detailed his
complaints in this respect by subsequent letters of 14 April 2005, 15
January 2008 and 19 March 2009. His complaints concerned three
specific establishments, mainly the Jilava, Rahova and Margineni
prisons.
-
The Court has previously held that an applicant’s detention in
different establishments may be considered a continuous situation if
the detention conditions remained substantially identical and the
prisoner’s transfer from one facility to another did not change
the situation (see, among others, Seleznev v. Russia, no.
15591/03, §§ 35-36, 26 June 2008). The Court considers that
such a situation arises in the instant case in respect of the three
establishments concerned. Taking into account that the applicant
complained consistently about the material conditions of detention in
the three establishments and that his transfer from one facility to
the other did not change the situation, the Court considers his
detention in the three establishments can be regarded as a continuous
situation.
- Noting further that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, the
Court concludes that it must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) The parties’ submissions
- The
Government, referring to the description of the detention conditions
in the information provided by the NPA (paragraphs 26-30 above),
contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary
measures in order to ensure adequate conditions of detention. They
further contested the allegation that the applicant had been held in
overcrowded cells. They stressed that the quality of water and food
in the prisons had been adequate, as had been shown by the relevant
authorities.
- In
respect of Jilava Prison, the applicant, without contesting the
figures concerning the size of the cell, indicated that the cell area
quoted had also included the bathroom and toilets, thus reducing the
effective space available for beds to 37 sq. m for forty-five to
forty-nine inmates. He further argued that even if the Government
could not provide the exact number of beds available in a cell, it
was possible to independently calculate how many beds could fit in
such a space, considering that each bed occupied an area of 1.52 sq.
m. He further indicated that no relevant documents had been submitted
regarding water quality prior to 2005.
- As
to Rahova Prison, the applicant further conceded that the water
quality had been better when compared to other detention centres. In
respect of the food, he did not contradict the Government’s
arguments concerning the quality check done on the raw materials.
However, he contended that the products purchased by the
administration for preparing meals had not actually been used for
this purpose, but rather that they had been sold on. He reiterated
his complaint that the prices of items sold within the prison had
been higher than average market prices. In terms of the cells where
he had been detained in this establishment, he reiterated his
allegation that they had included more than ten inmates, even though
only ten beds had been available. During 2004-2006 the cell where he
had been placed had sometimes even accommodated fourteen prisoners.
He wondered why the Government had not submitted to the Court a list
recording the number of his cell and the number of inmates held
therein. He included statements made by three inmates, who declared
that during 2001 and 2003 the cells where they had been held had
included more than ten people and that the applicant had had to share
a bed with someone else or to sleep on the floor.
- The
applicant further argued that in Mărgineni Prison he had shared
cell no. 14, which had had a surface area of 42.12 sq. m, with
twenty-seven inmates. He underlined that even though he had been able
to take a shower twice a week, he had had to go to a different
section of the prison, which had required exposing himself to wind
and cold temperatures. He submitted statements made by two inmates,
one of whom indicated that from January to May 2009 twenty-seven
inmates had been held in a room of 48 sq. m, including the toilets,
while the other prisoner declared that for twenty days twenty
inmates, including the applicant, had been held in a cell of 48 sq.
m.
(b) The Court’s assessment
- The
Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental
values of democratic societies. The Convention prohibits in absolute
terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
irrespective of the victim’s conduct (Labita v. Italy
[GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
- Measures
depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an inevitable
element of suffering or humiliation. Nevertheless, the suffering and
humiliation involved must not go beyond the inevitable element of
suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate
treatment or punishment.
- In
the context of prisoners, the Court has already emphasised in
previous cases that a detained person does not, by the mere fact of
his incarceration, lose the protection of his rights guaranteed by
the Convention. On the contrary, people in custody are in a
vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect
them. Under Article 3 the State must ensure that a person is detained
in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human
dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure
do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding
the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that,
given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and
well-being are adequately secured (Valašinas v.
Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001 VIII,
and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94,
ECHR 2000-XI).
- When
assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the
cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific
allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no.
40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The length of the
period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions
also has to be considered (see among others Alver v.
Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005).
- An extreme lack of space in a prison cell weighs
heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of
establishing whether impugned detention conditions were “degrading”
from the point of view of Article 3 (see Karalevičius v.
Lithuania, no. 53254/99, 7 April 2005).
- In its previous cases where applicants had at their
disposal less than 3 sq. m of personal space, the Court has found
that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding
of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many
others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59,
6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §
50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02,
§47-49, 29 March 2007, and Labzov v. Russia,
no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
- By
contrast, in other cases where the overcrowding was not so severe as
to raise in itself an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, the
Court has noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as
being relevant for its assessment of compliance with that provision.
Such elements have included, in particular, the availability of
ventilation, access to natural light or air, adequacy of heating
arrangements, compliance with basic sanitary requirements and the
possibility of using the toilet in private. Thus, even in cases where
a larger prison cell was at issue – measuring in the range of 3
to 4 sq. m per inmate – the Court has found a violation of
Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an
established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example,
Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44,
18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89,
13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95,
§§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a
prisoner’s everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis,
Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79,
1 March 2007; Valašinas, cited above, § 104;
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106
and 107, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Novoselov v. Russia,
no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
- The
key issue in the case at hand is the assessment by the Court of the
living space afforded to the applicant in the three establishments
concerned. The Court notes that the applicant did not contradict the
Government’s submissions on the size of the cells. What is
contested between the parties is the actual occupancy of those cells:
while the Government submitted that the number of prisoners in a cell
was always inferior or equal to the cell’s designated
occupancy, the applicant claimed that, at times, prisoners had had to
share beds. The applicant also indicated that part of the surface of
the cells had been occupied by the bathroom facilities.
- The
Court notes that, even at the occupancy rate indicated by the
Government, the applicant’s personal space seems to have been
consistently below 3 sq. m, which falls short of the standards
imposed by the Court’s case-law (see Marian Stoicescu, cited
above, §§ 13 and 24, and Orchowski v.
Poland, no. 17885/04, §
122, ECHR 2009 ... (extracts)). Thus, taking as a base of
reference the figures indicated by the Government, during the few
months spent in Jilava Prison the applicant had less than 1 sq. m
available to him as personal space, during the seven-and-a-half years
spent in Rahova Prison he had around 2.9 sq. m available to him on
average, whereas in the few months spent in Margineni Prison he had
less than 2 sq. m available to him. The Court further underlines
that, in reality, these figures are even lower, taking into account
that some of the room was occupied by the toilets and different items
of furniture.
The
amount of outdoor exercise claimed by the Government to have been
available to the applicant cannot compensate, in this case, for his
severe lack of personal space (see, Dimakos,
cited above, § 46).
- The
Court further notes that the applicant spent most of his detention in
Rahova Prison. Even though there are no CPT reports concerning this
specific establishment, the Court has recently analysed the material
conditions of detention in this prison for periods of time which
overlap with the period in which the applicant was detained there
(see Răcăreanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§
49-52, 1 June 2010, and Dimakos, cited above, §§
45-50). In both judgments, the Court concluded that the applicants
had been held in overcrowded cells providing them with less than 3
sq. m of personal space and that they had been deprived of the
possibility of maintaining adequate bodily hygiene in prison. In the
light of the information submitted by the Government in the instant
case in respect of the arrangements for showers and in the light of
its findings in the Dimakos and Răcăreanu,
cases cited above, the Court cannot but conclude that the
applicant was also deprived of the possibility of maintaining
adequate bodily hygiene.
- The
Court thus considers that the applicant’s situation resulting
from insufficient personal space was further exacerbated by poor
hygiene conditions.
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and
unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap
v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007;
Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§
97 et seq., ECHR 2002 VI; and the judgments cited
above: Răcăreanu, § 49, Dimakos,
§ 49, and Petrea, §§ 49-50).
In
the case at hand, the Government failed to put forward any argument
that would allow the Court to reach a different conclusion.
- Even
though in the present case there is no indication that there was a
positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court
concludes that the conditions of his detention caused him suffering
that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in
detention and that attained the threshold of degrading treatment
proscribed by Article 3.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
- Taking
into account this finding, the Court does not consider it necessary
to examine further the part of the complaint concerning the poor
quality of food and water.
B. Other complaints under Article 3
- Relying
in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained
about the anxiety and stress suffered between 2001 and 2006 while
detained in Rahova Prison because of abuses on the part of special
intervention forces storming prisoners’ cells. He further
complained of an alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for his
health problems relating to his teeth, anaemia and haemorrhoids.
- The
Court notes firstly that the complaint concerning the storming of the
cells has been raised for the first time by letter of 15 January
2008, whereas the alleged events took place during the period 2001 to
2006. It follows that this part of the complaint has been introduced
out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
- Secondly,
in respect of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of medical
treatment, the Court recalls that in the case of Petrea, cited
above, it has concluded that before the entry into force of Ordinance
no. 56/2003, on 27 June 2003, there was no effective remedy for
situations such as the one complained of by the applicant. However,
after that date, persons in the applicant’s situation had an
effective remedy to complain about the alleged lack of medical
treatment even if their applications had already been pending
with the Court at the relevant date (see Petrea, cited above,
§§ 35-36).
The
Court sees no reason to depart in the present case from the
conclusions it reached in Petrea.
- As
regards the complaint concerning the dental treatment, the Court
notes that the applicant raised it for the first time by letter of 15
January 2008. Taking into account that the applicant’s
complaint in the instant case does not relate to a systemic problem
caused by the flaws of the medical insurance system for ensuring
dental care for detainees deprived of any financial means, contrary
to the factual situation in the case of
V.D v. Romania (no. 7078/02, § 86-88, 16
February 2010), the Court considers that the applicant had available
an effective remedy to complain about the alleged poor quality of the
dental treatment. Nevertheless, it does not
transpire from the available material that the applicant made any
specific requests with the prison authorities in that connection.
- It
follows that the part of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of
medical treatment after 27 June 2003 should be rejected for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- Further,
the Court finds no evidence in the file of a potential breach of the
applicant’s right to receive medical treatment during detention
for the period before the entry into force of Ordinance no. 56/2003.
It
follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant raised complaints under Articles 6 §§ 1-3
in respect of the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him
and 8 of the Convention in respect of alleged breaches of his rights
to correspondence while in detention.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It
follows that this part of the application 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
- 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.”
A. Damage
- In
respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 600,000 euros
(EUR) for the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, EUR
200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the alleged
violation of Article 3 of the Convention and EUR 50,000 for the
alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
- The
Government considered that the claims were exaggerated and that there
was no causal link between the alleged violations and the damages
sought. They argued that a conclusion of a violation of Article 3
could constitute just satisfaction in the case.
-
The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 3 in the
present case. In these circumstances, it considers that the applicant
must have experienced a certain distress, which the mere finding of a
violation cannot compensate. It therefore awards him 16,000 EUR
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that default interest 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
- Declares the complaints concerning Article 3, in
so far as they refer to the material conditions of detention in
Jilava, Rahova and Mărgineni Prisons admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 16,000
(sixteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the respondent
State’s national currency 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Section Registrar President
