CONDIŢIILE DE DETENŢIE ÎN JURISPRUDENŢA CURŢII EUROPENE A DREPTURILOR OMULUI CONTRA ROMÂNIEI. DE LA CAUZA REZMIVEŞ LA CAUZA VĂSCĂUŢANU ŞI ALTE 975 DE PLÂNGERI DECLARATE INADMISIBILE ÎN DATA DE 29 IANUARIE 2026
DETENTION CONDITIONS IN THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST ROMANIA. FROM THE REZMIVEŞ CASE TO THE VĂSCĂUŢANU CASE AND OTHER 975 APPLICATIONS DECLARED INADMISSIBLE ON JANUARY 29, 2026

Summary/Abstract: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights occupies a distinctive position within the Convention system, as it traditionally allowed applicants to bypass the strict requirement of exhausting domestic remedies when alleging violations related to detention conditions that undermine human dignity and physical integrity. This exception reflected the absolute nature of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. However, developments in Romanian domestic law have progressively aligned the national system with the principle of subsidiarity underpinning the European human rights protection mechanism. The adoption of Law No. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences and custodial measures marked a turning point in Romania’s legal framework concerning the protection of detainees’ rights. This legislative act established an effective domestic remedy enabling persons deprived of liberty to challenge inadequate detention conditions before the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty. By doing so, Romania eliminated the exceptional treatment previously afforded to Article 3 complaints and subjected them to the same admissibility requirements as other Convention rights, notably the obligation to exhaust available national remedies. Within the Romanian legal system, detainees benefit from two complementary remedies. The first is a preventive remedy, available to persons currently subjected to precarious detention conditions, designed to bring an immediate end to the alleged violation. The second is a compensatory remedy, accessible to individuals who claim to have endured inadequate detention conditions but who are no longer detained under such circumstances at the time of lodging the complaint. The effectiveness of these remedies is assessed in light of the guarantees of a fair trial, with particular emphasis on the independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities and their capacity to provide solutions that satisfy both the detainees’ interests and the standards developed in the Court’s case-law. Following the pilot judgment in Rezmiveş and Others v. Romania, the Romanian authorities adopted an action plan in 2020 aimed at addressing the structural deficiencies of the penitentiary system. Between 2020 and 2024, measures included increasing detention capacity, renovating and modernising existing facilities, transferring detainees to alleviate overcrowding, and initiating the construction of two new prisons. These reforms sought to remedy systemic shortcomings previously identified by the European Court of Human Rights. In Văscăuţanu v. Romania, the Court acknowledged that the applicant had used the remedy provided by Law No. 254/2013 to allege ill-treatment and seek medical care, but failed to invoke this mechanism to complain about detention conditions. The Court held that, as of 6 April 2023, the complaint before the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty constituted an effective remedy for challenging inadequate detention conditions. Consequently, applicants are now required to use this remedy to seek immediate improvements before seizing the Strasbourg Court. This reasoning has been reinforced by seventeen inadmissibility decisions concerning 925 applications under Article 3 on 29 January 2026. While the Court retains the authority to scrutinise the consistency of domestic case-law and the practical effectiveness of remedies, its approach confirms a decisive shift towards reinforcing subsidiarity and national responsibility in addressing detention conditions in Romania.

• Details
• Contents