CASE OF RADU POP v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 14337/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 July 2012
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 4 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 4 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision .
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
�������� Josep Casadevall, President , �������� Alvina Gyulumyan, �������� Egbert Myjer, �������� J�n �ikuta, �������� Ineta Ziemele, �������� Nona Tsotsoria, �������� Kristina Pardalos, judges , and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar,
B. The criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempted murder and assault
- cell no. 8 with a surface area of 12.54 square metres and occupied by six to eleven detainees;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
BAILII · Verbatim mirror
In the case of Radu Pop v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
�������� Josep Casadevall, President,
�������� Alvina Gyulumyan,
�������� Egbert Myjer,
�������� J�n �ikuta,
�������� Ineta Ziemele,
�������� Nona Tsotsoria,
�������� Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 June 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The incident of 18 August 2003
B. The criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempted murder and assault
C. Criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant against the police officers
D. Conditions of detention
1. Zalău Police Station
2. The Satu Mare Prison
The cells in which the applicant was detained were as follows:
- cell no. 8 with a surface area of 12.54 square metres and occupied by six to eleven detainees;
- cell no. 71 with a surface area of 24.72 square metres and occupied by thirty‑four detainees;
- cell no. 56 with a surface area of 8.2 square metres and occupied by seven detainees;
- cell no. 59 with a surface area of 27.78 square metres and occupied by twenty‑seven detainees;
- cell no 53 with a surface area of 8.2 square metres and occupied by five detainees.
3. The Baia Mare Prison
He was detained in cells nos. 14 and 29.
Cell no. 14 had a length of 7.75 m, a width of 5.2 m and a height of 2.75 m and was occupied by between thirty-one and thirty‑seven detainees.
Cell no. 29 had a length of 5.2 m, a width of 3.85 m and a height of 2.9 m and was occupied by thirteen detainees.
4. The Jilava Prison
5. Gherla Prison
E. Medical care in prison
45. The diagnoses of personality disorder and chronic gastritis were made on the applicant�s arrest.
F. The applicant�s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention
1. The complaint concerning the conditions of detention in Baia Mare Prison
2. ���������� The criminal complaint against the doctors of Gherla Prison
G. The applicant�s correspondence with the domestic authorities and the Court
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
III. REPORTS ON THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN ROMANIAN PRISONS
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
�No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.�
A. Admissibility
1. The parties� arguments
Furthermore, for the complaint concerning the conditions of detention and the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in all places of detention the applicant could have lodged a complaint under the provisions of Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003.
2. The Court�s assessment
(a) The incident on 18 August 2003
(b) The material conditions of detention
It therefore rejects the Government�s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
(c) The alleged deterioration of the applicant�s health and the alleged lack of medical treatment
(i) Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons
It therefore rejects the Government�s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the alleged lack of medical treatment while in detention in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons.
Noting further that this part of the complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 � 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, the Court concludes that it must be declared admissible.
(ii) Satu Mare and Jilava Prisons
It follows that this part of the complaint must be rejected for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Merits
1. The material conditions of detention
(a) The parties� submissions
(b) The Court�s assessment
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The alleged lack of proper medical treatment in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons
(a) The parties� submissions
b) The Court�s assessment
In conclusion, there was no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of lack of medical treatment in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 � 2 OF THE CONVENTION
Therefore, in the light of the foregoing considerations and of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 �� 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 �� 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION
A. Complaint concerning the alleged impossibility of calling and questioning witnesses
121. Therefore in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 �� 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaint concerning the alleged refusal of court‑appointed counsel
It also notes that the applicant did not bring to the attention of the authorities any concrete shortcomings in the defence provided by his appointed counsels. Moreover, there is no indication that in the proceedings conducted against the applicant the Romanian authorities had cause to intervene in respect of the applicant�s legal representation.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 �� 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 34 OF THE CONVENTION
It follows that the part of the complaint concerning the alleged breach of Article 8 while detained in Satu Mare, Jilava and Gherla Prisons must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Therefore, it concludes that there is nothing to indicate that the applicant was in any way frustrated in the exercise of his right to respect for his correspondence or of his right of petition (contrast Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, �� 41�44, Reports 1998‑VII, and Cotleţ v. Romania, no. 38565/97, � 71, 3 June 2003).
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 �� 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
�If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.�
A. Damage
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints under Article 3 concerning the conditions of detention and the medical treatment admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of medical treatment in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 � 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,400 (eight thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be converted into the respondent State�s national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant�s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 July 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 �� 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada���������������������������������������������������������������� Josep Casadevall�������� Registrar������ President
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.