Gergely v. Romania

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 40975/21 Florian-Ovidiu GERGELY against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 October 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Ana Maria Guerra Martins , President , Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 40975/21) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 September 2021 by a Romanian national, Mr Florian-Ovidiu Gergely (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Aiud Prison;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his detention in prisons located a significant distance from his home, combined with the refusal to transfer him to a closer facility, had disproportionately restricted his ability to maintain contact with his family and that the refusal had been discriminatory.

2 . The applicant has been serving a fifteen-year prison sentence since 16 April 2014. He was initially detained in Miercurea Ciuc Prison, located in his home area. In January 2020 he was transferred to Aiud Prison (approximately 200 km from his home), in June 2020 to Gherla Prison (approximately 230 km away), and in February 2021 to Oradea Prison (approximately 400 km away), pursuant to various decisions of the director general of the National Prison Administration issued under Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences (“Law no. 254/2013”).

3 . While he was detained in Oradea Prison, the applicant requested to be transferred back to Aiud Prison, which is closer to his family home, as his parents were no longer able to visit him owing to their advanced age and deteriorating health, particularly his father’s. The request was refused by the National Prison Administration on the grounds that no places were available at Aiud Prison. The applicant did not challenge that decision in the administrative courts. Instead, he lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for supervising deprivation of liberty at Oradea Prison (“the supervising judge”), alleging an infringement of his right to visits and seeking a transfer to a facility closer to his family. On 10 May 2021 the supervising judge dismissed his complaint. The applicant appealed against that decision. 4. By a final decision of 24 June 2021, the Oradea District Court upheld the supervising judge’s decision. The domestic court found that the prison had complied with its obligations by ensuring visiting facilities, a schedule for visits, and the possibility of maintaining telephone and online contact. It also noted that no visit requests from the applicant’s family had been refused. With regard to the transfer request, the Oradea District Court confirmed the supervising judge’s finding that he lacked jurisdiction to order such a measure and indicated that the applicant should have challenged the refusal in the administrative courts.

5 . After lodging his application with the Court, the applicant was transferred back to Aiud Prison in 2024; however, he did not specify the exact date of his transfer.

6 . The applicant complained that his detention far from his family home, together with the refusal to transfer him to a closer facility, had disproportionately interfered with his right to respect for his family life. He further alleged that the refusal of his transfer request had been discriminatory, in so far as a similar request by another prisoner had allegedly been granted. The applicant relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

7 The applicant complained before the Court that his detention in prisons located increasingly further away from his home, together with the refusal to transfer him to a closer facility, had restricted his ability to maintain family ties.

8 The applicant referred to several detention facilities; however, he only substantiated his complaints concerning Oradea Prison – which was the furthest away – where he received no visits and where he lodged a transfer request and a complaint with the supervising judge. Consequently, in the absence of any substantiated complaints concerning Aiud and Gherla Prisons, the Court will examine only the applicant’s complaints relating to his ability to maintain contact with his family during his detention in Oradea Prison.

9 The general principles concerning the impact of detention and prison allocation on family life have been summarised in Bechi v. Romania (no. 45709/20, §§ 72-74, 25 June 2024) and, more generally, in Vintman v. Ukraine (no. 28403/05, §§ 76-79, 23 October 2014). In relation to the specific issue of refusals of requests for transfer to a prison nearer to the family home, see, among other authorities, Rodzevillo v. Ukraine (no. 38771/05, § 83, 14 January 2016), Polyakova and Others v. Russia (nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 87-89, 7 March 2017), Fraile Iturralde v. Spain ((dec.), no. 66498/17, §§ 17-20, 7 May 2019), and Emre v. Türkiye (no. 2412/21, §§ 30-31, 16 December 2025).

10 Although the Convention does not guarantee prisoners the right to choose their place of detention and separation from their families is an inevitable consequence of imprisonment, detaining an individual in a prison that is so far away from his or her family that visits are rendered very difficult may, in certain circumstances, affect family life (see Bechi , cited above, § 73, and the references cited therein).

11 The Court therefore considers it reasonable to assume that the applicant’s transfer to Oradea Prison, situated approximately 400 km from his home, had some impact on his ability to maintain family ties ( ibid. , § 76).

12 The relevant question is whether, having regard to the effect of this transfer and to the arrangements in place at Oradea Prison for maintaining contact, the situation went beyond the “normal” hardships and restrictions inherent in the very concept of imprisonment (see Bechi , cited above, § 74; Polyakova and Others , cited above, § 90; and Fraile Iturralde (dec.), cited above, § 19).

13 The applicant’s transfer was ordered under Law no. 254/2013 (see paragraph 2 above) and thus had a legal basis. It also pursued a legitimate aim, namely managing prison capacity and reducing overcrowding (see paragraph 3 above). There is no indication in the case file suggesting that the transfer was arbitrary or punitive in nature. Likewise, the refusal to transfer the applicant from Oradea Prison back to Aiud Prison was based on the lack of available places (see paragraph 3 above).

14 As regards the necessity of the measure, the following considerations are of relevance.

15 The applicant relied primarily on the advanced age and poor health of his parents, arguing that this made travel to prisons located further away more difficult. He has not alleged the existence of a partner or minor children (for the links between minor children and their imprisoned parents, see Deltuva v. Lithuania , no. 38144/20, § 47, 21 March 2023).

16 Although personal circumstances are relevant, the applicant provided only limited information on the actual frequency of family visits before and after his transfer to Oradea Prison. He indicated only that his father had visited him twice while he was detained in Aiud Prison and did not submit any information on how the increased distance had had an adverse impact on his parents’ ability to visit him, nor did he provide any evidence showing that visits had become impossible or excessively difficult in practice.

17 As such, the present application can be distinguished from the cases invoked by the applicant in which the prisons concerned were located thousands of kilometres from the applicants’ homes (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 849, 25 July 2013, and Polyakova and Others , cited above, § 82), or in which visits required exceptionally long and burdensome journeys (see Vintman , cited above, § 81; Rodzevillo , cited above, § 78; see also Emre , cited above, § 32).

18 Furthermore, it appears from the applicant’s submissions that visiting arrangements were available in all the prisons where he was detained. He did not allege that visits had been subject to restrictions exceeding those inherent in detention, nor that requests for visits had been refused.

19 Both the supervising judge and the Oradea District Court examined the applicant’s complaint about his ability to receive visits at Oradea Prison and found that the necessary arrangements to accommodate visits were in place and functioning correctly, but that no visit requests had been made by any member of the applicant’s family. As further noted by the domestic courts, the applicant also had access to alternative means of communication – including telephone and online contact – and he had in fact communicated online with his parents on several occasions, meaning that he had been able to maintain family ties. There is no indication that this assessment was manifestly unreasonable or that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s interest in maintaining family ties and the requirements of the prison system.

20 As regards the refusal to transfer the applicant back to Aiud Prison, it was based on the lack of available places. Moreover, the applicant did not avail himself of the appropriate remedy – that is, to challenge the refusal of the National Prison Administration in the administrative courts (see paragraph 3 above). Although not decisive in itself, this shows that the domestic system afforded him an opportunity to seek review of the decision.

21 Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant was eventually transferred back to Aiud Prison, as requested (see paragraph 5 above). Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration started in 2021, when he arrived at Oradea Prison, and ended in 2024, when he was transferred – that is, approximately three years (compare Vintman , cited above, § 80, where the applicant had not seen his mother for almost ten years).

22 In these circumstances, having regard to the distance involved, the absence of evidence of concrete obstacles to maintaining contact, the availability of visits and alternative means of communication, the relatively short period of time, and the lack of any indication of arbitrariness in the organisation of the applicant’s detention, the situation complained of did not constitute a disproportionate interference with his ability to maintain family ties.

23 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.

24 The applicant further complained that the refusal to transfer him to a prison closer to his home had been discriminatory.

25 Article 14 of the Convention applies only in relation to rights and freedoms falling within the scope of another substantive provision of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, 16 March 2010).

26 In view of its finding that the complaint under Article 8 is manifestly ill-founded, the Court considers that the present complaint does not disclose any arguable issue under Article 14.

27 The applicant has not shown that the refusal to transfer him to a closer prison significantly affected his ability to maintain family ties, nor has he substantiated his allegation of differential treatment. Although he referred to another prisoner who had allegedly been granted a transfer, he failed to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that that individual was in an analogous situation to him, in particular with regard to sentence, security classification, availability of prison places, and relevant personal circumstances affecting family visits. In the absence of a valid comparator, it cannot be established that the applicant was treated differently from others in a relevantly similar situation.

28 It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 October 2026.

Valentin Nicolescu Ana Maria Guerra Martins Acting Deputy Registrar President