SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF MIRON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
 
(Application no. 74497/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
4 September 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Miron v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Paul Lemmens, President,
 Valeriu Griţco,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 74497/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Alexandru Miron (“the applicant”), on 7 November 2013. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr R. Zadoinov a lawyer practising in Chișinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr L. Apostol. 3. On 29 September 2014 the complaints concerning Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 3 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Chișinău. A. The applicant’s arrest and detention
5. On 24 August 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody on charges of murder and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He was remanded in custody by the Centru District Court on 28 August 2011 and his detention was subsequently extended every thirty days until 21 January 2012 on the grounds that given the seriousness of the charges against him, he might abscond, re-offend and interfere with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions. 6. On 17 January 2012 the applicant’s case was committed for trial and his detention was extended by the court every three months, finding that the grounds which justified his initial detention had remained valid. 7. In his appeals against the decisions of 12 April, 10 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant complained, inter alia, about the length of his detention which, in his view, was no longer justified. He argued that his detention pending trial had already exceeded the twelve-month time-limit set under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the courts had not put forward any exceptional circumstance justifying such a long detention period, while the seriousness of charges could not by themselves constitute sufficient ground for his extended deprivation of liberty. 8. By decisions of 23 April, 20 June and 25 July 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. 9. By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 17 September 2014 the applicant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to twenty‑three years of imprisonment. B. Conditions of detention
10. On 28 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chișinău where he was detained until 4 December 2014. 11. According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, and accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 square metres. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diagnosed with tuberculosis or HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes. 12. On 18 April 2014 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about the applicant’s detention conditions in prison no. 13. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions denied the complaints on overcrowding, TB infected inmates, insufficient food and medical assistance. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
13. The relevant domestic law was summarised in Savca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17963/08, § 12-17, 15 March 2016. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant complained that his detention in inadequate conditions had amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
15. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
16. The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of detention in prison no. 13 (see paragraph 11 above). 17. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations and argued that the applicant’s conditions of detention in prison no. 13 had not amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 18. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning conditions of detention set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005; in Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, §§ 83-85, 15 September 2015; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 163-67, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Mursič v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 104, ECHR 2016). 19. The Court recalls that it has found the conditions of detention in prison no. 13 to be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in numerous judgments (see, among recent authorities, Hadji v. Moldova, nos. 32844/07 and 41378/07, § 20, 14 February 2012; Silvestru v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 28173/10, 13 January 2015; and Pisaroglu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 21061/11, 3 March 2015). The Court thus considers that the hardship endured by the applicant during his detention in prison no. 13 went beyond the unavoidable level of hardship inherent in detention and reached the threshold of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 13: violation