35792/16;7283/20;54675/20;13308/21

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MACAVEIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 35792/16 and 3 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Macaveiu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Anne Louise Bormann, President, András Jakab, Corinna Wissels, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.The Romanian Government (“theGovernment”) 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. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Standing of the heirs in application no.35792/16 5.The Court notes that Mr Victor Macaveiu, the applicant in application no.35792/16, died on 2 December 2018, that is, after having lodged the present application. The applicant’s heirs (set out in the appended table) expressed the wish to pursue the application in his stead and submitted documents showing their status as heirs at various dates between 2022‑2023. The Government objected. 6.The Court considers that the applicant’s heirs have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application, having regard to the nature of the complaints and to their close family relationship with the late applicant. It therefore accepts that they may continue the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Sagvolden v.Norway, no.21682/11, §§ 82-90, 20 December 2016). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.As regards the admissibility of application no.54675/20, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning loss of victim status for the period of detention specified in the appended table because adequate redress based on Law no.169/2017 amending and completing Law no.254/2013 on the execution of sentences was afforded for that specific period. 9.The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of the inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December2019 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, 15April 2020. The Court therefore finds that the relevant part of application no.54675/20 (details described in the appended table) is incompatible rationepersonae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant was, indeed, afforded adequate redress for the period of detention specified in column7 of the appended table. That part of the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article35§§3(a) and 4 of the Convention. 10.As regards the admissibility of all applications, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention. The Government showed that a complaint with the judge responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty (plângerea în fața judecătorului de supraveghere a privării de libertate), under Article56 of Law no.254/2013, as well as an action in tort had become effective remedies for grievances similar to those of the applicants and invited the Court to declare these applications inadmissible. 11.The Court recalls that in Văscăuțanu v. Romania (dec.), no.10120/23, §§47‑59, 18November 2025, it held that the remedy consisting of lodging a complaint with the judge responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty (plângerea în fața judecătorului de supraveghere a privării de libertate), provided for by Article 56 of Law no. 254/2013, has constituted, since 6April2023, an effective remedy enabling individuals who allege that they are being detained in inadequate conditions to bring to an end a situation which they denounce as being contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 12.The Court further recalls that in Polgar v. Romania, no.39412/19, §§94‑96, 20July 2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as consistently interpreted by the national courts, has represented, since 13 January 2021, an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer detained in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention (see also Vlad v.Romania (dec.), no.122/17, §§30‑33, 15 November 2022). 13.However, the applicants in the present applications ceased to be held in conditions allegedly contrary to the Convention before the above‑mentioned remedies became effective. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances. 14.Turning to the periods of the applicants’ detention, the details of which are indicated in column 4 of the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršićv.Croatia [GC], no.7334/13, §§96‑101, ECHR2016). 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 Article3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.42525/07 and 60800/08, §§149‑59, 10January 2012). 15.In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos.61467/12 and 3others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 16.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 indicated in column4 of the appended table were inadequate. 17.These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 18.In application no. 54675/20, the applicant also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the conditions of detention served during other periods. 19.The Court has examined the application 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles34 and35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article35§4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE41 OF THE CONVENTION 20.Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that the heirs of the applicant in application no.35792/16, set out in the appended table, have standing to pursue the application in his stead; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, for the periods specified in column4 of the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no.54675/20 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods specified in column 4 of the appended table; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya MaradudinaAnne Louise Bormann Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Sq.m per inmate Specific grievances Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] 35792/16 09/08/2016 Victor MACAVEIU Died in 2018 Codlea, MiercureaCiuc Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 14/03/2015 to 13/09/2017 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) - overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food 3,000 7283/20 15/01/2020 Nicolae‑Răzvan MORAR Brașov County Police Station 09/07/2019 to 10/07/2019 2 day(s) Brașov County Police Station 16/07/2019 to 06/09/2019 1 month(s) and 22 day(s) - lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light 1,000 54675/20 17/02/2021 Attila NAGY Timișoara and Oradea Prisons 23/12/2019 to 31/08/2020 8 month(s) and 9 day(s) 2.31‑2.94m² overcrowding (save for the periods between 01/04/2019‑09/04/2019 and 16/01/2020‑24/02/2020), infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature 132 days in compensation for a total period of 678 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 11/09/2017‑22/12/2019 5,000 13308/21 18/02/2021 Adrian‑Ovidiu CĂTINEAN Sălaj County Police Station and Gherla Prison 26/06/2020 to 31/08/2020 2 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2.18‑2.24m² overcrowding (save for the period between 24/07/2020‑27/07/2020), no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture, passive smoking 1,000 Heir(s) in application no. 35792/16 Decedent Heir Victor MACAVEIU Died in 2018 Angela GORUN Born in 1953 Nicolae HALMAGHI Born in 1954 Viorica VODĂ Born in 1946 Vasile ARSU Born in 1952 Ioan CHIUJDEA Born in 1938 Maria GRIGOROIU Born in 1946 Adrian-Ioan IMINOVICI Born in 1963 Mariana IMINOVICI Born in 1968 [1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.