GEORGESCU AND CIUKUR v. ROMANIA - 58798/16 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 260 (28 March 2024)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GEORGESCU AND CIUKUR v. ROMANIA - 58798/16 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 260 (28 March 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/260.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 260

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF GEORGESCU AND CIUCUR v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 58798/16 and 3506/17)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

28 March 2024

 

 

 

 

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

 


In the case of Georgescu and Ciucur v. Romania,

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

 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 March 2024,

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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention.

THE LAW

  1. 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.

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION


6.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.


7.  The Government argued that the applicants had lost their victim status for certain periods of detention because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for specific periods of detention.


8.  The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the 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.


9.  As regards application no. 58798/16, the Court notes that this remedy was available to the applicant, and he was, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).


10.  Therefore, the Court accepts the Government's objection and finds that certain parts of application no. 58798/16 (see for the relevant details the appended table) are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.


11.  As regards application no. 3506/17, due to the particular circumstances of the applicant's detention, he did not effectively benefit from the said remedy. The domestic authorities acknowledged the breach of the Convention but did not afford the applicant adequate and effective redress. The Court therefore rejects the Government's objection concerning the loss of the victim status by the applicant in application no. 3506/17.


12.  Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants' detention the details of which are indicated in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. 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).


13.  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.


14.  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 during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate.


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

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS


16.  In application no. 58798/16, the applicant also raised an additional complaint under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during another period.


17.  The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.


18.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


19.  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 sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, for the periods indicated in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 58798/16 inadmissible;
  3. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table;
  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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Anja Seibert-Fohr

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant's name

Year of birth

Representative's name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m per inmate

Specific grievances

Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]

  1.    

58798/16

04/11/2016

Florin-Marius GEORGESCU

1985

 

Miercurea Ciuc, Giurgiu and Constanța Poarta Albă Prisons; Dej and București Jilava Prison Hospitals

06/02/2010 to

23/07/2012

2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s)

Dej, București Jilava and București Rahova Prison Hospitals

8 periods during

19/03/2014 to

03/04/2017

2 month(s) and 13 day(s)

1.66 - 2.90 m2

 

 

 

 

 

-

overcrowding (save for 04/04/2011 - 09/11/2011 and the periods spent in prison hospitals), overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food

 

354 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 19/10/2017 (save for the periods spent in prion hospitals, as mentioned in column no. 5, and in transit, about which he did not complain)

3,000

  1.    

3506/17

23/12/2016

Cristian-Simion CIUCUR

1994

Nicoleta Trif

Arad

Arad County Police Station; Arad and Timișoara Prisons

22/10/2014 to

01/10/2015

11 month(s) and 10 day(s)

 

Arad and Timișoara Prisons

08/10/2015 to

19/10/2017

2 year(s) and 11 day(s)

-

 

mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food

 

3,000

 


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


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/260.html