THIRD SECTION
CASE OF
BLEJUŞCĂ v. ROMANIA
(Application no.
7910/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 mars 2013
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 Blejuşcă v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 February 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
7910/10) 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 Romanian national, Mr Maxim Silvanus Blejuşcă (“the
applicant”), on 27 January 2010.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea.
As Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in
respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of
Court), the President of the Chamber appointed Ms Kristina Pardalos to sit as ad hoc judge
(Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules
of Court).
The applicant complained about the conditions of
his detention in Timişoara Prison. He complained
specifically of overcrowding and poor conditions of hygiene.
On 15 February 2011 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Timişoara.
On 11 October 2011 the Timiş County Court
sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for robbery.
The applicant has been detained in Timişoara
Prison since 3 September 2009 until the present (except for the period
between 11 and 18 February 2010, when he was hospitalised in the
medical unit of Rahova Prison).
Conditions of detention
The conditions of the applicant’s detention are
in dispute between the parties.
1. The
applicant’s account
The applicant complained mainly of overcrowding
and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He complained of the following.
The cell occupied by him was 4-5 metres in
length, 3.2 in width and 3 metres high and he shared it with eight other
detainees, one of whom was suffering from syphilis.
The temperature in the cell was not adequate
because the window was broken; in winter the detainees covered it with a
blanket.
Sanitary conditions were very poor and the cell
was full of parasites.
The installations in the bathroom were defective.
The prison had no place specially designed for
eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells, where there was no
other furniture than the beds.
The applicant alleged that before they were
transported to the courts they were forced to leave the cell and strip naked.
In addition, before being transported to the court they were all kept in a
small room (3.5 metres in length and 4 metres high) for at least one hour.
He also contended that the detainees were not
allowed to take a walk every day, there were no educational, cultural or sports
activities available, and they were simply left in their cells all the time
with no occupation.
2. The Government’s
account
The Government submitted in their observations
that, in general, the conditions in Timişoara Prison were adequate.
They further submitted that the applicant had
spent most of the relevant time in cell no. 85, where non-smoking inmates were
held. The cell had a length of 6.2 m, a width of 3.4 m and a height of 3 m.
It was fitted with 9 beds and throughout the period when the applicant was
held there the number of inmates never exceeded the number of beds. According
to the information provided by the national authorities, currently there are
7 inmates held in cell no. 85.
The cell was fitted with a window which was
150 cm long and 177 cm high, providing good ventilation, thermal
isolation and natural lighting.
Moreover, the cell was equipped with a
television set, adequate furniture, electricity and sanitary facilities.
The penitentiary had its own electricity and
heating.
Each cell had a sanitary annex fitted with
toilet, sink and shower. Cold water was supplied constantly and warm water was supplied
every day in accordance with a schedule set up by the prison’s manager.
As regards the hygiene conditions, according to
the same information, the Timişoara Penitentiary has contract with a
specialised company and consequently there were periodical insect and rodent
control visits. The last one had been carried out in 2010.
The inmates’ clothes were cleaned at the prison’s
laundry. In 2010 each inmate had been provided with two bed sheets and one
cotton blanket.
The applicant’s allegation that he had to share
the cell with persons suffering from syphilis or other contagious disease was
denied by the prison administration.
As regards the daily walk and the educational,
cultural and sports activities available, according to the Government the
penitentiary had two yards for sports activities: the first for fitness
and ping-pong and the second for the daily walk and mini-football.
As to the transportation conditions, the
Government submitted that a personal search was required by the Safety Rules
for Places of Detention in specific cases, including when prisoners were bring
transported to and from the courts. The search was carried out by an officer of
the same gender, using special screens for privacy. When the number of
detainees exceeded 22, they were transported to the court by bus.
3. The applicant’s domestic complaints concerning the
material conditions of detention
29. The
applicant lodged several complaints concerning the poor conditions of his
detention with the Parliament, Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman. He did
not made such complaints with the judge responsible for the execution of the
prison sentences on the basis of Law no. 275/2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
Excerpts from the
relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Law no.
275/2006, and from the relevant parts of the reports of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“CPT”) on prison conditions, are given in
the case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, (no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained about the conditions of
his detention in Timişoara Prison. He mainly complained of overcrowding
and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He relied 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.”
A. Admissibility
1. 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 about the conditions of his detention.
The applicant disagreed. He alleged that he had
lodged several complaints concerning his conditions of detention with the
Parliament, Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman.
2. 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 for the period starting from
3 September 2009 up to the present.
The Court also notes that in recent judgments
concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific
nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions indicated by the Government
did not constitute effective remedies (see Lăutaru v. Romania,
no. 13099/04, § 84,
18 October 2011, and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
It therefore rejects the
Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Noting further that the
application 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.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
The applicant reiterated that he had been held
in inadequate conditions, that the cell had been overcrowded and that the
conditions had not been conducive to maintaining proper hygiene.
The Government contended that the domestic
authorities had taken all necessary measures to ensure adequate conditions of
detention for the applicant.
2. The Court’s assessment
The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the
Convention, 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 (see 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
the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98,
§ 46, ECHR 2001-II).
In previous cases where applicants have had at their disposal less
than three square metres 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 other authorities, Iamandi v. Romania,
no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010;
Răcăreanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Flamînzeanu v. Romania,
no. 56664/08, § 98,
12 April 2011).
The focal point in the case at hand is the
assessment by the Court of the living space afforded to the applicant in
Timişoara Prison.
The Court notes that even at the occupancy rate
put forward by the Government, the applicant’s living space seems to have been
less than three square metres, which falls short of the standards
imposed by the case-law (see Orchowski
v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 122, ECHR 2009 ...
(extracts)).
The Court further notes that other circumstances
of the applicant’s detention, such as the hygiene conditions, are in dispute
between the parties.
However, there is no need for the Court to
establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, since it considers
that the overcrowding of the applicant’s cell gives it sufficient grounds to draw
substantive conclusions on whether the conditions of the applicant’s detention
amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
In the light of the above, the Court considers
that the conditions of the applicant’s detention have caused him suffering
which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and
which attained the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention in this respect.
II. 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
The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered that the request for
non-pecuniary compensation was excessive and that a conclusion of a
violation of the Convention would suffice to compensate for the non-pecuniary
damage allegedly incurred.
The Court considers that the applicant suffered
distress as a result of the conditions of his detention. It therefore awards
him EUR 6,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed the value of costs
and expenses incurred before the Court, without indicating any amount.
The Government claimed that the applicant had
not submitted documentary evidence in support of his claims.
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the fact that
the applicant neither specified the sum claimed nor submitted any documents in this
connection, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
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. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention in
Timişoara Prison;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the
applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes
final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 6,600
(six thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable, which is to be to be converted into the
respondent State’s national currency at the rate applicable on 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;
4. Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 March 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
