THIRD SECTION
CASE OF
COTLEŢ v. ROMANIA (No. 2)
(Application no.
49549/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 October 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 Cotleţ v. Romania (no. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
49549/11) 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 Silvestru Cotleţ (“the
applicant”), on 29 July 2011.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
The applicant complained about the conditions of
his detention in Botoşani Prison. He complained specifically of
overcrowding and poor conditions of hygiene.
On 11 July 2012 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 1964 and lives in Gura-Humorului.
By a final judgment of 6 July 2011 the Suceava
Court of Appeal sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.
The applicant was detained in Botoşani
Prison between 11 July and 9 September 2011 and between 11
November 2011 and 6 January 2012.
On 6 January 2012 the applicant was released from
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,
unsatisfactory sanitary conditions and poor quality of food.
He was detained in an overcrowded cell. However,
the applicant did not state how many inmates the cell had, nor did he mention its
area. He simply stated that there were three tiers of bunk beds in the cell.
The cell was infested with insects. The applicant
sent an envelope containing insects to the Court in support of his allegations.
There was running water for only a few hours a day, so the detainees had to
collect water for drinking and to flush the toilets. The quality of the food
was poor. The prison had no dedicated place for eating, and the detainees were
forced to eat in their cells.
2. The Government’s account
The Government submitted in their observations
that, the applicant had been detained in Botoşani Prison under an open
regime for a period of four months.
They further submitted that the applicant had
occupied cell 5. The cell had an area of 17.1 square metres and a volume
of 56.43 cubic metres. The applicant shared the cell with eight
inmates. Accordingly, each detainee had 6.27 cubic metres of space.
The cell was fitted with two windows measuring 130
cm by 160 cm, providing good ventilation and natural lighting. It was
also equipped with a television set and had adequate electricity and sanitary
facilities. The cell had a sanitary annex containing a shower. The prisoners were entitled to two showers per week.
The prison had its own heating. As regards the
hygiene conditions, there was periodical insect treatment and rodent extermination.
3. The applicant’s complaint concerning the material
conditions of detention
On 7 September 2011 the
applicant lodged a complaint with the delegated judge on the basis of
Law no. 275/2006, concerning the conditions of his detention, and in
particular poor hygiene, lack of personal space, infringement of his right to
eat in a dedicated space and to have one hour of suitable exercise in the
open air daily, as well as complaining that the food was inadequate and
insufficient. He also claimed that despite being in an open detention regime he
had had no permanent access to the spaces made available by the detention
authorities to detainees in an open regime.
On 27 September 2011 the delegated judge allowed
the applicant’s complaint in part, only as regards his lack of access to spaces
made available to detainees in an open regime. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint
concerning overcrowding, holding that six cubic metres were sufficient.
The applicant appealed the judgment. During the
appeal proceedings the applicant abandoned his request to have a witness heard
on his behalf. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed as
unfounded by the Botoşani District Court.
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 Botoşani Prison. He mainly complained of overcrowding, unsatisfactory
sanitary conditions and poor quality of food. 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.”
The Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
The Government raised a preliminary objection of
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant had
abandoned his complaint about the conditions of his detention in
Botoşani Prison made on the basis of Law no. 275/2006, in spite of the
fact that this remedy was effective.
The applicant disagreed.
2. The Court’s assessment
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint
concerns the material conditions of his detention and, in particular,
overcrowding, poor sanitary facilities and quality of food. It also notes that
the applicant lodged a complaint concerning his conditions of detention on the
basis of Law no. 275/2006. However, the part of
the complaint concerning overcrowding was dismissed as unfounded. As
regards the Government’s allegation that the applicant had abandoned this appeal,
the Court observes that the applicant abandoned his bid to have a witness heard
on his behalf, and not his appeal, which was examined on the merits in court
(see paragraph 25).
The Court notes that in recent judgments
concerning similar complaints it has already found that a legal action based on
Law no. 275/2006 could not have afforded the applicant immediate and
effective redress for the applicant’s complaint (see Cucu v. Romania,
no. 22362/06, §§ 73-74, 13 November 2012).
. It therefore rejects the Government’s
plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
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.
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).
33. The focal point in the case at hand is the
assessment by the Court of the living space afforded to the applicant in Botoşani
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 four square metres, which falls short of the standards
imposed by the case-law (see Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no.
56664/08, § 98,
12 April 2011 and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 96, 17 July 2012).
The Court further notes that other circumstances
of the applicant’s detention, such as the standard of hygiene, are in dispute
between the parties.
However, there is no need for the Court to
establish the truthfulness or otherwise 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly, the applicant raised several complaints
under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning
the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him, his right to defence, and
the presumption of innocence. 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 these complaints do not
disclose any violation of the provision invoked. Therefore they must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) 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
The applicant claimed 5,963 euros (EUR) in compensation
for pecuniary damage, representing the minimum salary for the period between
22 November 2009 and 22 November 2012, the fee for obtaining a new
driving licence, and medical fees. He also claimed EUR 20,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government submitted that no causal link
could be discerned between the alleged violations and the pecuniary damage
claimed. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, they maintained that the amount
requested by the applicant was too high.
The Court does not discern any causal link
between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 600 in compensation
for non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 959.64 for costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
The Government contended that except for the
amount of 105.25 Romanian lei (RON) representing the costs incurred for
correspondence with the Court, the costs claimed by the applicant had no link
with the applicant’s conditions of detention and were not justified.
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 had only submitted evidence in connection with the costs
incurred for correspondence with the Court, the Court considers it reasonable
to award the sum of EUR 25.
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 the
conditions of detention admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention in Botoşani
Prison;
3. 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 600 (six hundred euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 25 (twenty-five euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 October 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
