CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   486 15.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Ciupercescu v. Romania (application no. 35555/03)     BODY SEARCHES OF DETAINED SUSPECT NOT JUSTIFIED, DESPITE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM   Unanimously:   No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the applicant’s classification as a dangerous prisoner; and Two violations of Article 3 as regards the applicant’s detention regime following his classification as a dangerous prisoner and the conditions of his detention in Bucharest-Jilava Prison (overcrowding)     Principal facts   The applicant, Dragoş Ciupercescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). A former serviceman, he was arrested on 23 March 2003 on suspicion of stealing munitions and explosives and using them in public places (in particular, injuring five schoolchildren and causing damage to property) with a view to extorting money from the Prime Minister.   He was immediately taken into police custody and on 24 March 2003 was placed in pre-trial detention. A forensic medical report found that he was suffering from antisocial personality disorders. Having regard to the nature of the accusations against him, the management of Bucharest-Jilava Prison, where he was being held, decided to classify him as a “dangerous prisoner”; on 11 November 2003 he was transferred to the wing for dangerous convicted prisoners. He was required to share a nine-bed cell (measuring approximately 14 sq. m) with 19 other prisoners, all of whom had been sentenced with final effect to between 10 and 27   years’ imprisonment. He was placed under the special detention regime for dangerous prisoners, involving, among other things, close surveillance by masked officers, unannounced body searches on a weekly basis (with a requirement to undress completely) and whenever he left the prison (with a requirement to undress partially), personal searches whenever he left or entered his cell, and restrictions on exercise and visiting rights.   In July 2004 Mr Ciupercescu lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Court of First Instance concerning his detention regime. He objected in particular to being placed in the dangerous prisoners’ wing together with convicted prisoners. The public prosecutor argued, in particular, that prison overcrowding made it impossible to detain him with other remand prisoners, especially as the offences for which he was being prosecuted were extremely serious. The applicant’s complaint was allowed on 15 October 2004 and upheld on appeal on 21 December 2004. Mr Ciupercescu did not obtain the damages he had sought, but on 11 February 2005 he was transferred to the remand prisoners’ wing of Rahova Prison.   In June 2005 and March 2006 he brought two actions against the National Prison Service, seeking damages for being unlawfully detained from 11 November 2003 to 11 February 2005 in a cell with convicted prisoners, under the dangerous prisoners’ regime and in inhuman conditions. The actions were dismissed with final effect by the Bucharest Court of First Instance on 30 January 2006 and 1 November 2007 respectively. In December 2005 the applicant applied to set aside the prison authorities’ decision to declare him a “dangerous prisoner”, but that action was likewise dismissed in a final judgment of 8 September 2006 by the Bucharest County Court.   In the criminal proceedings on the merits, following an investigation from March to October 2003, the case was sent for trial in the Bucharest County Court. In a judgment of 13   November 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to 18 years’ imprisonment for terrorism and disqualified him from exercising certain rights.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 in particular, Mr Ciupercescu objected that he had been placed under the detention regime for dangerous prisoners and complained about the conditions of his detention in Bucharest-Jilava Prison, in particular its overcrowding.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Classification of Mr Ciupercescu as a dangerous prisoner   The Court examined firstly whether, in itself, Mr Ciupercescu’s classification as a dangerous prisoner had been in breach of Article 3. It pointed out that such a measure did not in itself fall within the scope of Article 3 unless it was arbitrary. In the applicant’s case, in view of the extremely serious nature of the offences of which he had been accused and subsequently convicted, the Court accepted the national authorities’ decision. It further noted that, if he had so desired, he could have asked the national courts to review his detention regime. Article 3 had therefore not been breached as regards this first point.   The Court went on to examine whether the detention regime imposed on Mr Ciupercescu following his classification as a dangerous prisoner had been in breach of Article 3. It focused in particular on the searches to which he had been subjected. Again, such searches were not in themselves illegal, but in the applicant’s case they had had two defects. Firstly, on account of their routine nature, they had not met any convincing security needs. Secondly, they had not been conducted in an appropriate manner. Since the relevant rules were not sufficiently precise, prisoners being required to undress was a matter for the discretion of prison staff, leaving the prisoners with the impression of being subjected to arbitrary measures. The Court further noted that during the applicant’s detention in the dangerous prisoners’ wing of Bucharest-Jilava Prison, masked warders had carried out the searches and had stood near the prisoners when they received visits; the Court expressed concern about this intimidating practice, which, without being designed to humiliate the applicant, might have aroused a feeling of anxiety in him. Although, according to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CPT), such a practice was no longer applied, Mr Ciupercescu must nevertheless have been subjected to it during his detention in Bucharest-Jilava Prison. Article 3 had therefore been breached as regards this point.   Physical conditions of detention in Bucharest-Jilava Prison   In Bucharest-Jilava Prison Mr Ciupercescu had shared a nine-bed cell with 19 other detainees. Each prisoner had therefore had approximately 0.75 sq. m of living space. Even if the applicant had not been required to share his bed, the space available to each prisoner would have been approximately 1.50 sq. m, well below the standard recommended by the CPT (4 sq. m) in the report it had issued after its most recent visit to Romanian detention facilities, including Jilava Prison. The Court also took into account the fact that the available space had in fact been further reduced by the presence of furniture, and that Mr Ciupercescu had been confined to the cell for most of the day. In addition, the fact that he had been required to share his cell with convicted prisoners (in breach of Romanian law) was an aggravating factor. Lastly, the Court noted that in the report it had issued one year after the applicant had moved to another prison, the CPT had described the physical conditions of detention in the dangerous prisoners’ wing of Bucharest-Jilava Prison as “appalling”. Accordingly, there had been a further violation of Article 3 as regards this last point.   Just satisfaction (application of Article 41)   The Court held that Romania was to pay Mr Ciupercescu 14,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also had to pay a total of EUR 4,420 to his representatives for costs and expenses.   *** The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.