CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   294 7.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BRANDUSE v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Brânduşe v. Romania (application no. 6586/03) concerning in particular the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Arad prison (Romania), which is situated near a former refuse tip.   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of Mr Brânduşe’s conditions of detention; and, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the Romanian authorities’ failure to take the necessary measures to deal with the problem of offensive smells coming from the tip.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ioan Brânduşe, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for fraud and is currently imprisoned in Arad (Romania).   While in pre-trial detention Mr Brânduşe was at first held at Arad police headquarters. He was then transferred to prisons in Timişoara (Romania) and Arad, where he has spent most of his detention to date. He complained in particular of overcrowding, food of poor quality and unhygienic conditions.   The applicant brought judicial proceedings to complain of his conditions of detention and the fact that in Arad Prison he had to put up with stale air and the nauseous stench from a site about 20 metres away from the prison formerly used for the disposal of household waste. This former refuse tip, managed by company S., which is itself run by Arad City Council, was in use from 1998 to 2003. Mr Brânduşe’s applications were rejected by the domestic courts.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 January 2003 and declared partly admissible on 31 May 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Mr Brânduşe complained of the conditions of detention at Arad police headquarters, and the prisons of Timişoara and Arad. Under Article 8, he further complained of the passivity of the authorities when required to come up with an appropriate solution to the problem of the former refuse tip.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that Article 3 required in particular that the State ensure that every prisoner was held in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity. With reference to the allegations of overcrowding, it noted that in Arad prison the applicant for several years had had a living space of 2.5 square metres, which in reality was reduced still further by the furniture in the cell. In Timişoara Prison, before 2007, he had had a living space of between 1.5 and 2 square metres. In addition, according to the information supplied by the Romanian Government, Mr Brânduşe had been entitled to one hour of exercise per day in the open air before the entry into force of Law   no.   275/2006.   The Court reiterated that it had already found breaches of Article   3 in numerous cases on account of inadequate individual living space. It accepted that in the present case there was nothing to indicate that there had been a real intention to humiliate or degrade the applicant, but considered nevertheless that he had been subjected for several years to an ordeal of an intensity which went beyond the level of suffering inevitably inherent in detention. There had accordingly been a violation of Article   3.   Article 8   While noting that Mr Brânduşe’s health had not deteriorated through proximity to the former refuse tip, the Court considered that, in the light of the conclusions of the environmental studies and the length of time for which the applicant had to suffer the nuisances concerned, the applicant’s quality of life and well-being were affected to the detriment of his private life in a way which was not merely the consequence of his deprivation of liberty. Indeed, the applicant’s complaint related to aspects which went beyond the context of his conditions of detention as such and which, moreover, concerned the only “living space” the applicant had had available to him for a number of years. It therefore considered that Article   8 was applicable in the case.   The Court observed that the Romanian authorities were responsible for the offensive smells, as company S. was run by Arad City Council. In addition, responsibility had been transferred from the Council to S. only in February 2006, and even after that date the environmental authorities had made the Council directly responsible for closing the site.   Moreover, the file showed that the tip was in operation effectively from 1998 until 2003, and that the growing volume of waste accumulated proved that it had even been used thereafter by private individuals, as the authorities had not taken measures to ensure the effective closure of the site. However, throughout that period the tip had no proper authorisation either for its operation or its closure. Whereas the applicable provisions imposed the requirement of a permit and compliance with a number of other conditions before the tip could be opened, the local authorities had not followed the procedure laid down and as a result had failed to comply with some of their obligations.   Furthermore, although it was incumbent on the authorities to carry out preliminary studies to measure the effects of pollution, it was only after the event, in 2003 and after a fierce fire on the site in 2006, that they did so. The studies concluded that the activity was incompatible with environmental requirements, that there was a high level of pollution exceeding the standards established in 1987 and that persons living nearby had to put up with significant levels of nuisance caused by offensive smells.   The competent authorities had explicitly penalised Arad City Council for the absence from the site of any means of informing the public about risks for the environment and the health of the population arising from the existence of the refuse tip. Nor had the Romanian Government been able to indicate what measures had been taken to ensure that the inmates of Arad prison, including in particular the applicant, could have effective access to the conclusions of the studies mentioned and to information whereby they could assess the risks to their health.   Lastly, the proceedings relating to the work to effect the closure of the former tip were still pending and the Government had not supplied any information about the progress – or even the beginning – of the work to cover over and rehabilitate the site, which was supposed to be completed in 2009. There had accordingly been a violation of Article   8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.