Briefed in May 2023

The Parascineti v. România concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 5 and 13 July 2005, due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages (violation of Article 3). The Cristian Teodorescu v. România case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals, or in one case (Ulisei Grosu) the applicant’s arrest by police with a view to such placement, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Mental Health Act and without any justification relating to their mental health condition (violations of Article 5 § 1(e)).

The R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania case concerns the non-voluntary confinement of the applicants in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment and about the obligation to undergo that medical treatment.

The Centre for Legal Resources presented their Recommendations on these cases.

Al-Nashiri v Romania (Application No 33234/12)

Briefed on 6th September 2021 and 20 May 2019

The case concerns violations of a number of Convention rights on account of the fact that the applicant was the victim of an “extraordinary rendition” operation. The European Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Romania hosted a CIA detention site code-named “Detention Site Black”, which operated from 22 September 2003 to 5 November 2005, and that the applicant was secretly detained there from 12 April 2004 to 6 October 2005, or, at the latest, to 5 November 2005. He was subjected to inhuman treatment, on account of an extremely harsh detention regime. He was subsequently transferred by the CIA out of Romania to another of its detention facilities.

Ms Amrit Singh, Counsel for Mr Al-Nashiri, and Director, Accountability, Liberty and Transparency Division at the Open Society Justice Initiative, set out why the case was still not being properly implemented and made recommendations to the Committee of Ministers.

Documents from the September 2021 briefing:

Presentation by OSJI on the case (September 2021)

DH-DD(2021)777, Communication from an NGO (Open Society Justice Initiative) (27/07/2021) in the case of Al Nashiri v. Romania (Application No. 33234/12).

Documents from the May 2019 briefing:

Action Plan from the Romanian authorities (April 2019)

Rule 9.2 submission by OSJI on the case (May 2019)

Balsan v Romania (Appl. No 49645/09)

Briefed on: 28 May 2018

This case concerns the failure by the national authorities to adequately protect the applicant from domestic violence inflicted by her spouse in 2007 and 2008. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 and of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3.

• 2018 Action Plan from the Romanian authorities

• Case briefing notes of Ms Georghe

• Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Bragadireanu v Romania group of cases (Application No 22088/04) and Rezmives and others (Application No 61467/12+ )

Briefed on: 21 February 2020 and 5 March 2018

These cases concern inhuman and/or degrading treatment suffered by the applicants on account of overcrowding and poor material conditions in prisons and police detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard; the inadequacy of the medical care provided to some of the applicants and several other dysfunctions regarding the protection of the prisoners' rights (violations of Article 3; and violation of Article 13 in the case of Marcu).

Documents from the February 2020 briefing:

• Power point by George Stafford, EIN Co-Director, on behalf of Georgiana Gheorghe, Director, APADOR-CH

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from a NGO (Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH)) (21/10/2019) in the cases of Rezmives and Others and BRAGADIREANU group v. Romania (Applications No. 22088/04, 61467/12) [Anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2019)1263]