CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } THIRD SECTION Application no. 3417/13 Ion MOROCA against Romania lodged on 10 December 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ion Moroca, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Focsani. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 6 October 2010, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention at the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate where he remained until 23   February 2011. 1.     The applicant’s material conditions of detention The applicant complains about his material conditions of detention in the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate between 6 October 2010 and 23   February 2011 (a total of 140 days). The applicant describes the conditions of his detention as follows: there was no natural light and fresh air in the cell due to the fact that a large part of the detention centre is built underground; the detention centre was overcrowded, the applicant having shared a cell that was approximately eight metres sq. with three other detainees; the cell where he was detained lacked sanitary facilities and visits to the common sanitary facilities were scheduled at fixed times, namely 06.00 AM, 14.00 PM and 20.00 PM, the remainder of the day the applicant being forced to use jars, plastic bags and plastic recipients for his daily necessities; the toilets in the common sanitary facilities were fully exposed, failing to offer even a minimum of privacy; there was no hot water at the showers; between 6 October 2010 and 4   January 2011 (a total of 88 days) the applicant shared the cell with three heavy smokers, although a non-smoker himself, and was exposed to cigarette smoke almost all day long. 2.     The interference with the applicant’s right to private and family life The applicant also complains that, during his stay at the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate, the prison authorities, acting in compliance with an internal order from the Focsani Prosecutor’s Office, unlawfully breached his right to make phone calls and receive family visits between 6   October 2010 and 12 December 2010 (a total of 35 days). According to the applicant, the prison authorities, repeatedly and in an arbitrary manner, denied his and his family’s requests for phone calls and visits. The applicant maintains that, on several occasions, the prison authorities left his family waiting outside the detention centre for hours in a row until letting them know that their request to visit the applicant had in fact not been approved. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the prison authorities failed to give any reasons for their refusal to grant him his contact rights. 3.     The applicant’s complaints lodged with the domestic authorities (a)     Proceedings lodged by the applicant on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 On 22 November 2010, the applicant lodged a complaint on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 on the Serving of Prison Sentences with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. In essence, the applicant complained about the material conditions of his detention and the unlawful breach of his right to phone calls and visits. By an interlocutory judgment of 9 December 2010, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences found that the applicant’s complaints with respect to the material conditions of his detention were in fact accurate. The judge observed that the cell where the applicant was detained was overcrowded, that there were no sanitary facilities in the applicant’s cell and that, given the lack of any individual toilet cabins in the detention centre, the detainees had little to no privacy. The judge also pointed out the fact that access to the common sanitary facilities was restricted to the fixed schedule mentioned above. Finally, the judge confirmed that the applicant was the only non-smoker in the cell and that he was exposed to cigarette smoke almost all day long. With respect to the alleged breach of the applicant’s right to visits and phone calls while in detention, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences found that the prison authorities had unlawfully restricted the applicant’s contact rights on the basis of an internal note from the Focsani Prosecutor’s Office, which indicated that all requests for phone calls and visits had to be approved by the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation. The judge noted that Law no. 275/2006 permitted the restriction of contact rights only in specific circumstances (e.g. disciplinary sanction) and that the prison authorities had not given reasons to substantiate their refusal to grant the applicant his contact rights. Accordingly, the judge found that the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate had arbitrarily restricted the applicant’s contact rights on the aforementioned four occasions. In light of the above, in his interlocutory judgment of 9 December 2010, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ordered that the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate take all measures necessary to redress the inappropriate prison conditions and that the applicant’s contact rights be resumed immediately. (b)     Civil proceedings lodged by the applicant Following the interlocutory judgement by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, the applicant instituted civil proceedings under Articles 998-999 of the former Civil Code against the state at the Focsani County Court, seeking a non-pecuniary damage award of EUR 26,000 for his inhuman conditions of detention and the unlawful breach of his contact rights. On 9 November 2011, the Focsani County Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision at the Vrancea District Court, this time seeking a EUR 30,000 non-pecuniary damage award. On 24 April 2012, the Vrancea District Court recognized that the applicant’s material conditions of detention at the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate had been inconsistent with the standards imposed by Article   3 of the Convention and granted the applicant a RON 4,500 (approximately EUR 1,000) non-pecuniary damage award. With respect to the unlawful breach of the applicant’s contact rights while in detention, the Vrancea District Court held that the said restrictions were relatively isolated incidents that had not produced any significant prejudice to the applicant and had been redressed immediately after the interlocutory judgment by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. Consequently, the Vrancea District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages with respect to the unlawful breach of his contact rights as unfounded. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision with the Galati Court of Appeal. The Galati Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Vrancea District Court and therefore dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded on 17 October 2012. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, complains about his conditions of detention in the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate. 2.     Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant further complains about the infringement of his contact rights during his pre-trial detention at the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With respect to the applicant’s allegations under Article 3 of the Convention:   a)     Having regard to the amount paid to the applicant by the domestic authorities as well as to the justification given by the domestic authorities for the non-pecuniary damage award, may the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?   b)     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, due to his detention conditions at the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate?   The Government are invited to provide information and supporting documents on the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Vrancea County Police Inspectorate, in particular concerning the size of the cells, the number of the detainees in the cells at the time the applicant was detained and the facilities available.     2.     With respect to the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention:   a)     Having regard to the acknowledgement of a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, as well as the subsequent reinstatement of the said rights by the domestic authorities, may the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention for the purpose of Article 34 of the Convention?   b)     Has the applicant suffered a “significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(b) of the Convention?   c)     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If this is the case, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?