Quick answer
In Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (Applications nos. 61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 and 68191/13, judgment of 25 April 2017), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the conditions in which the applicants were detained — in particular overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions in Romanian prisons and police lock-ups — breached Article 3. Treating the problem as structural, the Court indicated under Article 46 that Romania had to adopt general measures.
Background and facts
The four applicants had been held in various Romanian prisons and detention facilities. They complained of severe overcrowding — often less than the minimum personal space required by the Court’s case law — together with poor hygiene, inadequate sanitation, and other degrading material conditions.
The Court’s reasoning
Article 3 — conditions of detention
Applying the standards set out in Muršić v. Croatia, the Court found that the applicants had been held in conditions falling below the Article 3 threshold, with a strong presumption of a violation arising from the lack of the minimum personal space, aggravated by other deficiencies. The conditions amounted to degrading treatment.
Article 46 — a structural problem
The Court observed that overcrowding and poor detention conditions in Romania were recurrent and systemic, having generated numerous judgments. Under Article 46 it held that Romania must, within six months of the judgment becoming final and in cooperation with the Committee of Ministers, provide a precise timetable for implementing appropriate general measures. It also decided to adjourn similar not-yet-communicated applications pending national reform.
The judgment
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3, required Romania to submit a reform timetable under Article 46, and adjourned similar pending cases.
Why this case matters
Rezmiveș is the Court’s pilot-type ruling on Romanian prison conditions. It confirms that chronic overcrowding is not merely an individual grievance but a structural failure requiring systemic reform, and it sets the framework the Committee of Ministers uses to supervise Romania’s prison reforms. It is the key reference for Article 3 detention-conditions complaints against Romania.
What this means for applicants
- Personal space is decisive. Falling below roughly 3 m² per detainee creates a strong presumption of an Article 3 violation.
- Cumulative conditions count. Poor hygiene, sanitation and ventilation aggravate the assessment.
- Structural problems trigger general measures. Where a defect is systemic, the Court may require reform under Article 46 and adjourn similar cases.
- Evidence of conditions is essential. Detailed accounts of space, time out of cell and sanitary facilities support the complaint.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania decide?
That prison overcrowding and poor conditions breached Article 3, and that the problem was structural, so Romania had to adopt general measures under Article 46 within a set timetable.
How much personal space must detainees have?
Under the Court’s case law, falling below about 3 m² of floor space per detainee in multi-occupancy cells creates a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3.
What are general measures under Article 46?
Reforms the State must implement to solve a systemic problem, supervised by the Committee of Ministers — here, a timetable to reduce overcrowding and improve conditions.
Why is the case important?
It is the leading pilot-type authority on Romanian prison conditions and the framework for reform of the prison system.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
- Trabelsi v. Belgium
- Saadi v. Italy
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
- Paposhvili v. Belgium
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.