In 2019, the applicant was assisted in preparing the complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Romania.
The case considers that a claim for harm has been an effective remedy since January 13, 2021 to obtain compensation for past improper conditions of detention or transportation of prisoners. There has been a violation of article 13 of the Convention in the case.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was in custody. He appealed against the improper conditions of detention, as well as a remedy (a civil claim for liability for a civil offense used to obtain compensation for moral damage.
LEGAL ISSUES
Regarding compliance with article 3 of the Convention. In making a final decision on the applicant's case, the Romanian courts noted that during his detention in Deva prison (from February 27, 2014 to April 29, 2015 and from May 14 to May 25, 2015), he was provided with less than 3 square meters of sanitary space.
In the pilot Judgment in Rezmive and Others v. Romania ( See: Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case "Rezmives and Others v. Romania" (Rezmive and Others v. Romania) dated April 25, 2017, complaint No. 61467/12.), the European Court has already established a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in factual circumstances similar to those considered in the present case.
RESOLUTION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
Regarding compliance with article 13 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with article 3 of the Convention. Arguing that there was no violation of article 13 of the Convention in the present case, the Romanian authorities referred to a remedy that arose as a result of the development of case law following the above-mentioned Ruling in Rezmives and Others v. Romania, which, according to the Romanian authorities, allowed numerous individual cases to be resolved. complaints related to the problem of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania.
(a) The creation of a new remedy provided for by Romanian law. On the basis of the materials submitted to it, the European Court was unable to verify whether all the decisions indicated by the Romanian authorities had entered into legal force. However, taking into account the significant number of examples from case law and the conclusions of the Romanian courts, the European Court formulated the following observations.
First, with regard to the availability of a remedy, the burden of proof imposed on the applicants did not seem excessive. In most of the examples cited, the complainants used readily available evidence, such as descriptions of the conditions of detention or transportation complained of, and sometimes witness statements, so the Romanian authorities had to refute these allegations.
Secondly, with regard to procedural guarantees, most of the proceedings lasted less than two years in the courts of one or two instances. Only four cases have been considered in courts of one or two instances for a little more than two years. In this regard, although the Romanian legislation in force at the time under review did not set a specific time limit for adjudicating such disputes, the time spent by the courts of the respondent State to consider a claim for injury did not seem to be unduly long. In addition, the rules on court fees did not seem to place an additional excessive burden on the plaintiff. According to Romanian law, persons wishing to file a lawsuit against the State to obtain compensation for improper conditions of detention or transportation were not required to pay a court fee.
Thirdly, the Romanian courts analyzed civil lawsuits for their compliance with the standards set out in the case law of the European Court. They considered whether the treatment of the plaintiffs had reached such a degree of cruelty as to fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention, taking into account the positive obligations of the State arising from this article. They also took into account the consequences of excessive overcrowding in correctional institutions when determining whether there had been a violation of article 3 of the Convention, and attached particular importance to the reasonableness of the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, given the duration of the existence of inadequate conditions of detention.
Fourthly, the establishment of the fact of improper conditions of detention or transportation of prisoners was the basis for the presumption of moral harm.
Fifthly, and finally, with regard to the question of whether the plaintiffs received adequate and sufficient compensation for harm, the European Court examined, on the one hand, whether compensation extended to the entire period complained of by the plaintiffs, and, on the other hand, whether the amounts of compensation awarded by the Romanian authorities were reasonable in comparison with the amounts of just compensation awarded by the European Court of Justice in similar cases.
(i) Was the compensation extended to the entire period under appeal? Most Romanian courts found a violation of article 3 of the Convention and awarded compensation for all the periods complained of by the plaintiffs. When considering a claim for injury due to improper conditions of detention, one court limited the period for which compensation was awarded, ruling that each transfer of the plaintiff to another correctional institution meant calculating the three-year statute of limitations anew. Two other courts took a different position, excluding from consideration, as falling under the statute of limitations, those periods of the plaintiff's detention that were interrupted by the applicant's release and were beyond the three-year limitation period for filing a claim for harm.
In order for the remedies provided by Romanian law to be considered effective, the Romanian courts had to analyze complaints of violations of article 3 of the Convention in accordance with the principles and standards of the case law of the European Court of Justice. This was especially important in cases where some plaintiffs claimed that they had been detained for longer than the three-year statute of limitations. However, only a very limited number of courts have ruled on this issue, and therefore this line of case law could not be considered widespread and consistent. In the opinion of the European Court, only systematic refusals by Romanian courts, confirmed by established case law, to apply the concept of a "continuing situation" developed in the case law of the European Court of Justice on complaints of violation of Article 3 of the Convention, could cast doubt on the effectiveness of the measure in question. There was no such situation in the present case.
(ii) Was the amount of compensation appropriate and sufficient? The Romanian courts applied the rules on liability for harm and fairly determined the amount of compensation for moral damage caused to the plaintiffs. In addition, the Romanian courts have not awarded amounts less than those awarded by the European Court of Justice in similar cases.
In the light of the above and the general standard of living in Romania, the compensation received by the plaintiffs, considered as a whole, did not indicate any systemic problem of improper compensation for damages in relation to the amounts awarded by the Romanian courts.
(iii) Conclusion. Taking into account the criteria used by the Romanian courts to assess improper conditions of detention and compensation for moral damage caused to the plaintiffs, it should be noted that Romania's case law has changed significantly since the above-mentioned pilot Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case "Rezmives and Others v. Romania" (Rezmive and Others v. Romania).
This practice was consolidated by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Romania dated February 19, 2020, which set out the basic criteria applicable to the type of legal remedies in question. This decision, which was notified to the parties on April 14, 2020, was available for review in the database of court decisions from July 13, 2020, and the public could not have been unaware of the decision six months after its publication, that is, on January 13, 2021.
Thus, a claim for harm, as the Romanian courts have repeatedly pointed out, has been an effective remedy since January 13, 2021 for persons who believed that they were the subjects of improper conditions of detention or transportation of prisoners, and who, at the time of filing the claim, were no longer in these conditions.
If the Romanian courts had systematically refused to consider complaints about improper conditions of detention in accordance with the principles and standards defined in the case law of the European Court of Justice, this could have called into question the effectiveness of this remedy. The European Court retained the authority to finally consider any complaints from applicants who, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, used the remedies provided by the Romanian authorities.
(b) The effectiveness of the remedy in the applicant's case. The applicant took advantage of the opportunity to file a claim for damages, which did not give him the opportunity to achieve full recognition of violations of the Convention and receive adequate and sufficient compensation. The final decision in the applicant's case was rendered by the Romanian authorities on February 13, 2019, that is, long before the date determined by the European Court as the date from which the remedy in question could be considered effective.
RESOLUTION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 13 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with article 3 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
Regarding compliance with article 46 of the Convention. With regard to preventive remedies, the European Court noted with interest that the degree of overcrowding in correctional institutions in Romania began to decrease immediately after the adoption by the European Court of Justice of a pilot Ruling on this issue, and also that appeals to sentencing judges allowed the Romanian courts to assess the situation of overcrowding in correctional institutions, appealed by some prisoners. However, the downward trend in the number of prisoners in correctional institutions came to naught in June 2020, and the corresponding number of persons in custody increased over six months, reaching a level of 199.2% by December 2020. This growth was also confirmed by the latest data available on the website of the management of the Romanian correctional system. As a result, the European Court was unable to reach a conclusion different from the conclusion reached in the above-mentioned Judgment in the case of Rezmives and Others v. Romania. Although Romanian legislation provided for preventive remedies, in the absence of a clear improvement in the conditions of detention in Romanian correctional institutions, especially with regard to their overcrowding, nothing in the case file suggested that these remedies would probably provide prisoners with an effective opportunity to bring these conditions into line with the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. The European Court of Justice called on the Romanian authorities to ensure that reforms are carried out to reduce the number of prisoners in correctional institutions and maintain the number of prisoners at an acceptable level.
As for the compensatory remedy, the European Court noted that from January 13, 2021 A civil action for injury provided, in principle, an appropriate remedy for complaints of violation of the Convention, which could be used by persons who believed that they had been detained in inadequate conditions in institutions of the internal affairs system or in correctional institutions, and who, at the time of filing the claims, were no longer held in conditions allegedly contrary to the Convention as well as persons who have appealed against improper conditions of transportation of prisoners.
COMPENSATION
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicant 2,500 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.