THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CONSTANTIN
TUDOR v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 43543/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 June 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 Constantin Tudor v. Romania,
The European
Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 May 2013,
Delivers the
following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
43543/09) 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 Constantin Aurelian Tudor (“the
applicant”), on 28 April 2009.
The applicant, who had been granted legal aid,
was represented by Mr A. Grigoriu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented successively by their
Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, and their co-Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
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respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of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 Mrs 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 alleged, in particular, that the
material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison and a lack of adequate
medical care for his spinal disc hernia had breached his rights guaranteed by
Article 3 of the Convention.
On 2 September 2010 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 1975. He is currently
detained in Rahova Prison.
By a final judgment of 28 September 2004 the
Court of Cassation sentenced the applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment for
human trafficking.
A. The material conditions of detention
1. The applicant
On 20 February 2008 the applicant was detained by
the Bucharest Police Department after being returned from Turkey, where he had fled in 2002, and started serving his prison sentence.
In his initial letter addressed to the Court on
28 April 2009 the applicant expressly stated that his rights guaranteed by
Article 3 of the Convention had been breached in so far as, inter alia,
he had been quartered (cazat) in Jilava Prison, a penitentiary notorious
as a place of torture and physical and mental terror because of inhuman and
degrading detention conditions. He further contended that his assertions had
already been proved before the Court in the case of Bragadireanu v. Romania,
no. 22088/04, 6 December 2007, and that they were supported by successive
reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
2. The Government
The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison
between 10 March and 25 September 2008, as well as between 2 October and 2
December 2008.
Between the second part of March and the first
part of June 2008 the applicant was detained in cell no. 614 measuring 42.75
sq. m, which he shared with between 19 and 20 other inmates.
Between the second part of June and the first
part of September 2008 the applicant was detained in cell no. 502 measuring
13.50 sq. m, which he shared with between 3 and 6 other inmates.
For the last two days of September 2008, as well
as between the second part of November and the first day of December 2008, the
applicant was detained in cell no. 611 measuring 42.39 sq. m. The occupancy
rate of the cell was 5 inmates for the last two days of September 2008 and
between 7 and 10 for the remainder of the period spent by the applicant in
Jilava Prison.
In respect of the hygiene conditions, the Government
submitted that every year the prison administration signed contracts for rodent
and pest control with specialised companies. Disinfection of the detention
rooms was carried out at least once every three months. Moreover, the quality
of the drinking water was examined regularly by the prison administration with
the aid of a specialised laboratory. Furthermore, the applicant had been
provided with a special food diet approved by the prison doctor, which was
prepared and served in accordance with the required hygiene conditions. The
food was fresh and of good quality.
Since 2006 significant rehabilitation work had
been carried out by the prison authorities. The heating network, the sewerage
and the water supply systems had been repaired. Some sections of the prison and
detention rooms had also been modernised.
B. Medical treatment
On 23 September 2000 and 9 September 2002 the
applicant was hospitalised in the psychiatric unit of the Săpunari Hospital and was diagnosed with organic personality syndrome. He was prescribed treatment for
his condition.
On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant was
diagnosed with spinal disc hernia. The examining doctor recommended that the
applicant undergo surgery.
Between 13 March and 2 December 2008 the
applicant was subjected to several other medical examinations - both in prison
and in civilian hospitals - that confirmed the above-mentioned diagnoses, and
he was prescribed treatment with various medicines. The prison authorities
provided him with the prescribed treatment for his organic personality syndrome
and his spinal disc hernia.
On 21 August 2008 the applicant filed a request
with the prison doctor to be allowed to be examined in connection with his
spinal disc hernia at the A.D. private clinic at his own expense.
On 1 September 2008 the doctor, M.M., granted
the applicant’s request and indicated that he was scheduled for a nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) scan at the E. private clinic.
On an unspecified date the applicant was taken
to the E. clinic for the NMR, but the scan was not carried out because of his
excessive weight, which could have damaged the machine.
On 22 September 2008 the applicant was taken to
the H. private clinic, where the NMR scan was carried out free of charge.
On 6 October 2008 the applicant was examined in
respect of his spinal disc hernia by doctor G.V., a specialist neurosurgeon
from Bagdasar Hospital in Bucharest, and was recommended treatment with
Tramadol, Famotidina and Movalis. An appointment was made for a re-examination
of his condition.
On 31 October 2008 doctor G.V. re-examined the
applicant in respect of his spinal disc hernia. He recommended that the
treatment with Tramadol and Famotidina be continued and that the applicant be
monitored in the infirmary prior to his surgery.
According to information submitted by the
Government on 12 December 2008, the applicant refused to be admitted to
the Rahova prison infirmary and on 15 December 2008 the Bagdasar Hospital informed
the prison authorities by telephone that the applicant’s surgery had been
temporarily postponed.
On 19 December 2008 the applicant’s surgery was
re-scheduled by doctor G.V. for 9 March 2009.
According to the information submitted by the
Government, on an unspecified date the applicant informed the prison doctor
that his family had contacted doctor G.V. and asked him to re-schedule his
surgery for 24 June 2009. The applicant’s statement was confirmed by
doctor G.V. by telephone.
On 16 April 2009 the applicant was re-examined
by doctor G.V. in respect of his spinal disc hernia. He was recommended
treatment for twenty-one days and his surgery was scheduled for 24 June 2009.
According to the applicant’s medical file, his
medical condition continued to be examined and monitored by specialist doctors
in private and prison hospitals.
On 29 June 2009 the applicant was taken to
Rahova Prison Hospital for a neurosurgical examination. However, the
neurosurgeon was absent and his examination had to be re-scheduled for a later
date.
On 14 July 2009 the applicant was examined by
doctor C.S., a specialist neurologist working for the Bucharest Prison
Hospital. According to her report, the applicant was suffering from lumbar
pain. She prescribed treatment and recommended an urgent neurosurgical
examination in respect of his condition.
Between 13 August and 14 December 2009 the
applicant’s medical condition was regularly examined in both prison and private
hospitals. On 24 August and 30 September 2009 the medical reports produced
in respect of his conditions recorded that the applicant’s general state of
health was good.
On 14 January 2010 the applicant was temporarily
released from prison, as required by the final judgment of 11 December 2008
(see paragraph 43, below), and in March 2010 he was operated on for spinal disc
hernia.
On 15 April 2010 the applicant returned to
prison after his spinal disc hernia surgery.
On 26 April 2010 the Mina Minovici Forensic
Medical Institute produced a forensic report in respect of the applicant’s
medical condition. It concluded that after the spinal disc hernia the applicant
needed physiotherapy for his recovery, which could be provided in prison
hospitals.
Between April 2010 and 16 December 2010 the
applicant’s medical conditions were monitored regularly by prison hospitals.
According to the medical records drawn up on 16 December 2010 by the Rahova
Prison doctor, his general medical condition was good.
On 3 August 2010 the applicant refused to be
hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital and he requested to be taken to civilian
hospitals for his post-surgical recovery treatment.
In a letter of 13 January 2011 the Rahova Prison
authorities informed the Government that the applicant had been provided free
of charge with the medical treatment prescribed by doctors for the entire time
he was detained in that prison.
C. Proceedings against the domestic authorities in
respect of the material conditions of detention and lack of medical care
On 13 October 2008 the applicant lodged a
complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences in
respect of the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison and a lack of adequate
medical care. The applicant also claimed compensation. He complained of inhuman
and degrading treatment because: (i) the prison cells were infested with
vermin; (ii) the quality of the food and drinking water was poor; (iii) proper
facilities for personal and food hygiene were lacking; and (iv) the cells
lacked furniture and the general living conditions of the detainees were poor.
On 15 October 2010, at the hearing before the judge responsible for the
execution of prison sentences, the applicant stated that his complaint
concerned a lack of medical care for his spinal disc hernia and insufficient
medical treatment for his organic personality syndrome.
By a decision of 23 October 2008 the judge responsible
for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The judge
held that the Jilava Prison authorities had taken the necessary steps to combat
the vermin infestation of the cells as they had signed pest control contracts
with a number of companies and the cells were disinfected at least once every
three months. Moreover, the judge held that the applicant’s complaints
concerning the poor quality of the food and drinking water and the lack of food
and personal hygiene facilities were unfounded, as: (i) the food at the prison
was prepared and stored on the basis of guidelines set by the Ministry of
Justice; (ii) the quality of the drinking water had been found to comply with
legal requirements according to an expert report of the Apa Nova water testing
laboratory; (iii) the applicant had access to the prison facilities necessary
to ensure his personal hygiene; and (iv) he was under an obligation to clean
and air his room in accordance with the daily schedule for detainees. The judge
also held that there was no evidence that the general living conditions for
detainees as provided for in Law No. 275/2006 had not been met in the applicant’s
case. Finally, the judge held that the applicant was being provided with
adequate medical care. He was kept under medical surveillance, was prescribed
the medical treatment that the doctors considered appropriate for his medical
condition and, in addition, his request to be treated at A.D.’s natural private
clinic at his own expense had been examined according to the relevant legal
provisions. The judge also rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation,
finding that the applicant could not bring a claim for compensation on the
basis of the procedure provided for by Law No. 275/2006 and that he therefore
had to bring separate proceedings seeking compensation. The applicant appealed
against the judge’s decision.
On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant
brought proceedings in the Bucharest County Court seeking temporary release
from prison on medical grounds. The domestic court ordered an expert forensic
report in respect of the applicant’s medical condition.
According to the expert forensic report produced
by the Mina Minovici Medical Forensic Institute on 28 November 2008, the
applicant was suffering from, inter alia, a spinal disc hernia which
required surgery and specialised post-surgery recovery. Consequently, the
forensic expert report recommended the discontinuance of the applicant’s prison
sentence for three months on the ground that the applicant’s spinal disc hernia
could not be operated on in a prison hospital.
By a final judgment of 11 December 2008 the
Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s action seeking his temporary
release from prison on medical grounds and ordered his immediate release.
On 12 December 2008 the Rahova Prison
authorities informed the Bucharest District Court that the applicant could not
be released as the Bucharest Court of Appeal had issued a separate arrest
warrant in his name on 17 December 2005 in a separate set of proceedings
concerning human trafficking.
On 19 December 2008 the Bucharest County Court
informed the Rahova Prison authorities that the applicant’s pre-trial detention
on the basis of the arrest warrant of 17 December 2005 had been extended by an
interlocutory judgment of 18 December 2008. It does not appear from the
evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the interlocutory
judgment of 18 December 2008.
By a final judgment of 14 January 2009 the
Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision
of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences dated 23 October 2008,
upholding the decision and finding that there was no evidence that the
applicant’s rights as a detainee had been breached.
On 19 February 2009 the applicant was subjected
to a psychiatric evaluation in the Jilava Prison Hospital. The medical report
confirmed that the applicant’s organic personality syndrome had improved.
By final interlocutory judgments of 13 March, 29
May, 3 June, 29 July, 24 August, 12 November and 15 December 2009 the
Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s actions seeking the
discontinuance of the pre-trial detention ordered against him on
17 December 2005. By a final interlocutory judgment of 29 May 2009
the Bucharest Court of Appeal also dismissed the applicant’s request for the
suspension of the proceedings on medical grounds. Neither of the parties has
provided the Court with the reasoning part of the interlocutory judgments
delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
On 13 January 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal
informed the Rahova Prison authorities that following its interlocutory
judgment delivered on the same day, the applicant’s pre-trial detention ordered
on the basis of the arrest warrant issued on 17 December 2005 had been revoked
and the applicant had been placed under an obligation not to leave town.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions
concerning the rights of detainees, namely Law no. 275/2006, are given in the
cases of Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 21-23, 29 April 2008); Gagiu
v. Romania (no. 63258/00, § 42, 24 February 2009); and Măciucă
v. Romania (no. 25763/03, § 14, 26 May 2009).
Excerpts 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 Bragadireanu v. Romania ( no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6 December
2007).
The relevant parts of the report of the Romanian
Helsinki Committee of 12 June 2008 in respect of the detention conditions in
Jilava Prison read as follows:
“... the basement of the old part of the prison building was
completely flooded with waste water ... Consequently, rats and cockroaches (and
bed bugs according to some detainees) have infested the cells in that part of
the building. Moreover, most cells were also infested with lice, mainly due to
worn out bed mattresses. No delousing operation could be effective as long as
the mattresses were not replaced ... The prison management claimed it had
engaged several pest control companies, which all gave up after taking note of
the situation in the prison. Another notorious problem was the extremely poor
water quality (muddy and filled with impurities) - unfit for drinking and risky
even for washing ... In terms of detention space, the total area of detention
space was 3034.81 sq. m, while the population was 1460, meaning 2.08 sq. m of
available detention space per detainee, half of the minimum norm recommended by
the CPT ... The kitchen area was totally unhygienic and the food quality was
poor ...”
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION
A. The parties’ submissions
The Government submitted that in their view the
applicant had not complained in concrete terms before the Court about the
material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison and they asked the Court
not to examine that part of the applicant’s complaints. Moreover, they argued
that that part of the applicant’s complaints was inadmissible as incompatible ratione
personae because the applicant did not claim to be the victim of a
violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. They
contended that while the applicant had made a general statement that the
conditions of his detention were inappropriate, he had never referred expressly
to overcrowding or the hygiene conditions in prison. Moreover, the fact that
the applicant might have raised these issues before domestic courts did not
imply that he wished to raise a similar complaint before the Court. In his
application before the Court the applicant had failed to provide details about
the conditions of detention he had been faced with personally and had been
content to refer to the conditions of detention described by a different
applicant in a separate case. Thus, had he desired to lodge a distinct
complaint before the Court with regard to the material conditions of his
detention, he should have complained of and described his own conditions and
not confined himself to noting that such conditions were common knowledge.
The applicant disagreed.
B. The Court’s assessment
The Court reiterates that since it is master of
the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, it does not
consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a
government. By virtue of the jura novit curia principle, it has, for
example, considered of its own motion complaints under Articles or paragraphs
not relied on by those appearing before it and even under a provision in
respect of which the Commission had declared the complaint to be inadmissible
while declaring it admissible under a different one. A complaint is
characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or
arguments relied on (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom,
§ 29, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172).
The Court notes that in his letter of 28 April
2009 the applicant expressly stated that his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of
the Convention had been breached because of, inter alia, the inhuman and
degrading conditions of detention in Jilava Prison where he was detained. While
it is true that he did not provide a detailed description of the conditions of
detention and he did not expressly refer to overcrowding and lack of hygiene
conditions he supported his assertions concerning the conditions he was
detained in by referring to the Court’s finding in the case of Bragadireanu
and to successive CPT reports.
The Court further notes that in the case of Bragadireanu
it found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the
conditions of detention the applicant was held in on account of overcrowding
and lack of hygiene conditions (see Bragadireanu, cited above, § 97).
Moreover, successive CPT reports, also referred to in the case relied on by the
applicant, when examining the conditions the detainees were housed in,
repeatedly stressed overcrowding and the lack of hygiene as constant problems
of the conditions of detention in Romanian prisons (see Bragadireanu,
cited above, § 75).
In the light of the above, and having regard to
the wording of the applicant’s letter of 28 April 2009 concerning the inhuman
and degrading conditions he was held in, the Court considers that it is
reasonable to consider that the applicant did lodge a complaint concerning the
material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison, in particular regarding
overcrowding and lack of hygiene conditions. The Court also notes that he
expressly claimed that he was directly affected by the alleged violation.
Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s
preliminary objection.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained about the material
conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison, in particular, overcrowding and
lack of hygiene conditions, and of a lack of adequate medical treatment in
prison for his spinal disc hernia. 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. Complaint concerning the material conditions of
detention
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 before the domestic authorities under Law no. 275/2006 of the
conditions of his detention, or he had withdrawn such a complaint. They argued
that the remedy under that Law was effective, having regard to the
jurisprudence already sent by them in previous cases such as, inter alia,
Lăutaru v. Romania (no. 13099/04, § 74, 18
October 2011).
The applicant disagreed.
(b) The Court’s assessment
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint
concerns the material conditions of his detention, in particular, overcrowding
and poor hygiene conditions. In this regard, it notes that in recent
applications lodged against Romania concerning similar complaints it has
already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the
legal action suggested by the Government does 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 Lăutaru, cited above, § 85).
The Court therefore concludes that the domestic
case-law referred to by the Government does not indicate how the legal action
proposed by them 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,
cited above, § 35).
. It therefore rejects the Government’s
plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s
complaint concerning the material conditions of detention in Jilava Prison.
. Lastly, the Court notes that
the applicant’s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) The parties’ submissions
The applicant submitted that the conditions of
his detention were inappropriate.
The Government, referring to their description
of the detention conditions submitted before the Court (see paragraphs 10-15
above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary
measures to ensure adequate conditions of detention and that the applicant’s
complaint was groundless.
(b) 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 of detention 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 Valašinas
v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
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 (see Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99,
§ 39, 7 April 2005).
The Court observes that Convention proceedings,
such as the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a
rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he
who alleges something must prove that allegation), because in certain instances
the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of
corroborating or refuting the allegations. A failure on the Government’s part
to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to
the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s
allegations (see Kokoshkina v. Russia, no.
2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Lăutaru, cited above, § 96).
The Court has frequently found a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to
detainees and unsatisfactory hygiene conditions (see, in particular, Kalashnikov
v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova,
no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Petrea, cited above,
§§ 49-50; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9
November 2010).
In the case at hand, the Government has failed
to put forward any argument that would allow the Court to reach a different
conclusion.
Moreover, the applicant’s submissions in respect
of the overcrowded and unhygienic conditions corresponds to the general
findings by the CPT in respect of Romanian prisons (see paragraph 51 above) and
to the findings of the report of the Romanian Helsinki Committee in respect of
Jilava Prison (see paragraph 52 above).
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 in respect of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention
in Jilava Prison.
B. Complaint concerning the alleged lack of medical
treatment
1. Admissibility
(a) The parties’ submissions
Relying on the Court’s case-law, the Government
raised a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in so
far as the applicant had not complained before domestic courts in respect of a
lack of adequate medical treatment in prison on the basis of Law no. 275/2006.
They further argued that lodging one complaint concerning one medical event did
not satisfy the requirements of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The applicant disagreed. He argued that he had
complained before the domestic authorities about the lack of adequate medical
treatment in prison and that he was not required to use the same remedy
repeatedly.
(b) The Court’s assessment
The Court finds that it is not necessary to
examine the Government’s preliminary objection because it considers that the
applicant’s complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Court reiterates that while Article 3 of the
Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release
detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State
to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for
example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Mouisel v.
France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Kudła,
cited above, §§ 93-94).
The Court notes at the outset that the applicant
was diagnosed with spinal disc hernia and was recommended surgery two years
prior to his detention (see paragraph 17 above). Therefore, it does not
consider that the applicant’s medical condition was caused by his detention, or
that the authorities can be held responsible for it (see, mutatis mutandis,
Viorel Burzo v. Romania, nos. 75109/01 and 12639/02, § 81, 30 June
2009).
With regard to the medical treatment received by
the applicant, the Court notes that the authorities made efforts to meet the
applicant’s health needs by regularly taking him to prison or civilian doctors,
including specialist doctors, or by hospitalising him in civilian and prison
hospitals. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant was prescribed
medical treatment designed to alleviate his condition and that that treatment
was provided to him on a regular basis. Furthermore, it does not appear from
the evidence in the file that the required medical treatment was not available
to him free of charge.
While it is undisputed that the domestic courts
ordered his temporary release because his spinal disc hernia could not be
operated on in a prison hospital, the Court notes that the prison authorities
were forced to delay his release on account of a separate arrest warrant issued
in his name on 17 December 2005. It also notes that although the applicant’s
temporary release and surgery were delayed by almost a year, he remained under
constant medical supervision and treatment. Moreover, it does not appear from
the evidence in the file that his medical condition deteriorated or became more
serious over that period. In this context, the Court observes that although on
14 July 2008 the doctor treating the applicant recommended an urgent
neurological examination in respect of his condition, the subsequent medical
reports confirmed that he was in a good general state of health.
The Court further notes that after the arrest
warrant of 17 December 2005 was revoked, the prison authorities
released the applicant immediately. In addition, following his surgery and
return to prison he had access to post-surgical recovery treatment and
remained under constant medical supervision. Furthermore, his medical condition
remained good, as confirmed by the medical report of 16 December 2010.
Having regard to the above, the Court considers
that the applicant’s situation in the particular circumstances of the present
case did not attain the minimum level of severity required under Article 3 of
the Convention.
It follows that this part of his complaints is manifestly
ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the
applicant complained of a lack of sufficient medical care in prison for his
organic personality syndrome. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
applicant complained that the proceedings concerning his complaint in respect
of the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison had been unfair in so far as
the Bucharest District Court had improperly assessed the evidence,
misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions, and lacked impartiality, and in
so far as his claim for compensation was concerned, the judge responsible for
the execution of prison sentences had dismissed it without providing reasons
for his decision.
The Court has examined these complaints as
submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its
possession, and in so far as they fall within its jurisdiction, 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 must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 10,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered the sum claimed by the
applicant to be excessive and argued that there was no causal link between the
alleged violation and the damages sought. They submitted that a finding of a
violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the case.
The Court notes that it has found a violation of
Article 3 in the present case. In these circumstances, the Court considers that
the applicant’s suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by the mere
finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant did not claim any 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 complaint concerning
Article 3, in so far as it concerns the material conditions of the
applicant’s detention in Jilava Prison, admissible, and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000
(three 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 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 18 June 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
