CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mars 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42096/15 Leon-Anton CLOȘCĂ against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   March 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   August 2015, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). On 2 July 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint before domestic courts in relation to the conditions of detention in the Cluj County Police Inspectorate. By decision of 17 May 2016, upheld by final judgment of 2   February 2017, the domestic courts found that the authorities had not complied with “the minimum requirements regarding the conditions of accommodation of persons deprived of liberty” and that the conditions in which the applicant had been held “were of such nature to infringe human dignity”. The applicant was awarded 22,400 RON (approximately 5,000   EUR) for moral damage. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Cluj County Police Inspectorate between 24 November 2014 and 5 March 2015. The Government argued that, since the applicant had been awarded compensation in the domestic proceedings, his application before the Court should be declared inadmissible as he could no longer justify his status as a victim. The applicant considered that the remedy he had available at the domestic level had not been effective since he had had to demonstrate that the domestic authorities were at fault for the harm he had suffered. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §   44, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI). The Court further notes that an applicant’s victim status may depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level, having regard to the facts about which the applicant complains before the Court (see,   inter   alia , Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 202, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). Turning to the present case, the Court notes, firstly, that the national courts found that the authorities did not comply with “the minimum requirements regarding the conditions of accommodation of persons deprived of liberty” and that the conditions the applicant was held in “were of such nature to infringe human dignity”. In view of this, the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts acknowledged, in substance, that the conditions of detention in which the applicant was held had fallen short of the standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Secondly, the Court observes the applicant was awarded 22,400   RON (approximately 5,000 EUR) for moral damage. The level of compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage by domestic courts in cases related to violations of Article 3 must not be unreasonable taking into account the awards made by the Court in similar cases. In this respect, the Court observes that in cases similar to that of the applicant it has awarded, under Article 41 of the Convention, significantly lower amounts as non-pecuniary damage (generally 1,000 EUR for four months of detention in inadequate conditions; see, among many others, Andronache and Others v.   Romania [Committee], no. 3567/16 and 16 others, 20 September 2018). It follows that the amount awarded to the applicant by the domestic authorities cannot be called into question. In conclusion, the Court finds that the domestic authorities have acknowledged, in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, the breach of the Convention. Thus, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Consequently, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Specific grievances 42096/15 17/08/2015 Leon-Anton CLOȘCĂ 02/04/1981 Cluj County Police Inspectorate 24/11/2014 to 05/03/2015 3 months, 10 days   Overcrowding (three detainees in a cell of less than 12 m²), insalubrious cell infested with bedbugs, worn-out beds, lack of sanitary facilities in the cell (two sanitary facilities for all detainees in the detention center), poor quality of food, shower rooms insufficiently separated, lack of intimacy, lack of adequate heating during the cold season, dirty walls with scratches.