FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VĂDUVA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 7344/15 and 9 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Văduva and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Armen Harutyunyan, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. Following the death of Mr Văduva (application no. 7344/15), his widow and children informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application introduced by the applicant. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 7344/15
6. On 1 February 2017, after the communication of the case, the Government informed the Court that the applicant in application no. 7344/15, Mr Văduva, had died on 6 November 2015, while in detention. They requested for the application to be struck out from the Court’s list of cases arguing that the complaints related to conditions of detention have a strictly personal character and cannot be pursued by heirs; they added that in any event the alleged heirs had not submitted any documentation to prove their legal standing as heirs. 7. On 4 May 2018 the applicant’s widow, Ms Elena Văduva and his children, Ms Carmen-Elena Andreescu, Mr Daniel-Ion Văduva, Mr Dorin‑Marian Văduva and Ms Mălina-Petronela Dumitrescu expressed their intention to pursue the application. The Government objected, claiming that the alleged heirs had failed to submit sufficient documents to prove their legal standing as heirs; the Government therefore maintained their request to have the application struck out from the Court’s list of cases. 8. In reply, the applicant’s relatives submitted further documentation – a certificate issued by the Ionești Townhall according to which the succession proceedings were opened, and the presumptive heirs are the widow and her four children. This document was communicated to the Government for information. No comments have been received by the Court. 9. The Court considers that the documents provided are sufficient to prove the legal standing of the presumptive heirs. Moreover, the Court considers that the applicant’s relatives have a legitimate interest in obtaining the findings of the violations of the Convention alleged by the late applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Morgoci v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13421/06, §§ 37-42, 12 January 2016). The Government’s objection is therefore not valid and the request to strike out the application from the list of cases is to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the Court decides that Ms Elena Văduva, Ms Carmen-Elena Andreescu, Mr Daniel-Ion Văduva, Mr Dorin-Marian Văduva and Ms Mălina‑Petronela Dumitrescu have standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 7344/15 on behalf of late Mr Văduva. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
12. In several applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention. 13. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23-33, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to some of the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table). 14. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 15. Turning to the periods of the applicants’ detention as specified in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 -141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-159, 10 January 2012). 16. In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 17. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods specified in the appended table were inadequate. 18. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
19. In application nos. 17491/16 and 27754/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table. 20. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit. It follows that these parts of applications nos. 17491/16 and 27754/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation