CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC09AF19 { width:186.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 16980/12 and 28390/12 Remus TUDOR against Romania and Remus TUDOR against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   January 2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Dragoljub Popović,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 19 December 2011 and 8 August 2012 respectively, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 November 2013 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant in cases no. 16980/12 and 28390/12, Mr Remus Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Ciontu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     In 1990 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was held in a number of different detention centers. He was detained in Jilava Prison from 8 April 2009 to 10   November 2011, when he was transferred to Giurgiu Prison. On 1   October 2012 the applicant was released on probation from Giurgiu Prison. 1.     The applicant’s conditions of detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 4.     The applicant complained of overcrowding and poor conditions of hygiene in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons. 5.     The applicant lodged two complaints with the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences in Jilava Prison. Relying on Law   no.   275/2006, he complained about the material conditions of his detention, namely the lack of furniture in which to keep personal objects and food, and the absence of a shower in the sanitary annex to the cell. He also complained of overcrowding and the low temperature in his cell. 6.     On 14 April 2011 and 14 March 2012 respectively, the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed the applicant’s complaints. However, it did not award any compensation to the applicant, as Law no. 275/2006 does not contain any provisions in that respect. 2.     The inadequate medical treatment in Jilava Prison 7.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences in Jilava Prison, claiming that Article 50 of Law no. 275/2006 had been infringed as he had received no medical treatment between 5 and 19   August   2011. He maintained that although he had been examined by a doctor on 5   August   2011, he not received the prescribed medication until two weeks later. 8.     By an interlocutory judgment of 12 September 2011, the judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint, holding that a delay of a few days in receiving medication would not have had a negative impact on his state of health. 9.     The applicant appealed, arguing that the delay in obtaining medication had caused him suffering and had aggravated his medical condition. 10.     On 25 November 2011 the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed the complaint, holding that the lack of prompt medication had had a negative impact on the applicant’s health. However, it did not award any compensation in that respect to the applicant. 3.     The search of the applicant’s cell in Jilava Prison 11.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences in Jilava Prison. He claimed that during a search of his cell performed on 13 July 2011, the prison guards had stolen several personal objects, including a personal diary, three packets of cigarettes and legal documents from his luggage. 12.     The judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 25 July 2011, holding that the search had been carried out in accordance with the law and in the presence of a detainee. The judge considered that the applicant had lodged his complaint in order to discredit the prison guards, who had found in his cell objects which he had not been allowed to possess in prison (a mobile phone, a charger for his phone and two syringes). 13.     The applicant challenged the interlocutory judgment. On 13   October   2011 the Bucharest Fourth District Court dismissed his complaint, holding that only the prosecutor could establish whether an offence had been committed. B.     Relevant domestic law 14.     Excerpts from the relevant provisions of Law no. 275/2006 concerning the rights of detainees are set out in the case of Iacov   Stanciu   v.   Romania , (no. 35972/05, § 116, 24 July 2012). COMPLAINTS 15.     The applicant complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, about the conditions of his detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons. He mainly complained of overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions. 16.     Under the same Article of the Convention the applicant complained of inadequate medical treatment while in Jilava Prison. 17.     Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that during a search of cell no. 207, carried out in his absence on 13 July 2011, the prison guards had stolen his personal diary and legal documents. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 18.     Having regard to the fact that both applications were submitted by the same applicant and concern similar issues, the Court finds it appropriate to join them. B.     Complaints concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 19.     The applicant complained of overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 20.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court by a letter dated 18 November 2013 that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. 21.     The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention in connection with his complaints concerning the conditions of his detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons. They undertook to pay the applicant 6,480 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and to be free of any applicable taxes. The compensation was payable within three months of the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay that sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points. They asked the Court to strike out application no. 16980/12 and partly strike out application no. 28390/12. 22.     On 13 November 2013, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. 23.     With regard to the applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons, the Court finds that in view of his express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 24.     The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above-mentioned complaints. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. 25.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in so far as they relate to the above-mentioned complaints. C.     Complaint concerning inadequate medical treatment 26.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of inadequate medical treatment in Jilava Prison. In this connection, he submitted that despite the fact that he had been prescribed medical treatment on 5 August 2011, he had not received the medication until 19   August 2011. 27.     In its written observations to the Court, the Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They contended that as a domestic court had already acknowledged an infringement of the applicant’s right to medical care, he should have tried to obtain compensation by lodging a new claim. 28.     The Court observes that the applicant followed the procedure provided for by Law   no.   275/2006. He lodged a complaint on the basis of Article 50, claiming that his right to medical treatment had been infringed by the Jilava Prison authorities. The complaint was initially dismissed by the judge responsible for the execution of judgments but subsequently allowed by the Bucharest Fourth District Court in its decision of 25   November 2011. The court held that the applicant’s right to medical care had been infringed on account of the fact that he had not received any medical treatment between 5 and 19 August 2011. However, it did not award any compensation to the applicant, as Law no. 275/2006 did not provide for compensation for damage. 29.     The Court further notes that although the domestic court did not award any compensation to the applicant, it did acknowledge that his right to medical treatment had been infringed. Having regard to the subsidiary character of the Convention machinery, the Court considers that the applicant should have brought a separate new action before a civil court and that it is not for the Court to speculate on the outcome of such an action. 30.     It follows that the complaint concerning the inadequate medical treatment in Jilava Prison must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non­exhaustion of domestic remedies. D.     Remainder of the application 31.     The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that during a search of his cell, carried out in his absence on 13 July 2011, the prison guards had stolen his personal diary and legal documents. 32.     The Court has examined this complaint as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in so far as they relate to the complaints about the applicant’s conditions of detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 February 2015. Stephen Phillips   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President