CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s1A03513A { width:144.77pt; display:inline-block } .sE6546C2D { width:159.78pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s745D60E8 { width:4.94%; 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 } .sA1BD339E { width:11.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC03B03F0 { width:17.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE2646EAB { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCCCB1D48 { width:27.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAE3C90DD { width:4.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCDD9BFE6 { width:11.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B1CB383 { width:17.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7C06F38F { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45A4652F { width:27.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1907/15 Daniel MUNTEANU against Romania and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   June 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They 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.” The Government pleaded that the applicants had lost their victim status due to the fact that they had benefitted from the remedy offered by Law   no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. They asked the Court to reject the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. The Government also raised a preliminary objection in application no.   1907/15; however, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on it because the application is inadmissible in any event, for the reasons presented below. The applicants disagreed claiming that the compensation had not been sufficient. The Court notes that, in its recent decision in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos.   14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) the Court has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible considering that the applicants had lost their victim status. The Court noted that Law no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences, adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (no. 61467/12 and three others, 25 April 2017) and in force between October 2017 and December 2019, had been an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law had set forth a compensatory remedy, available for periods of detention ranging from 2012 to 2019 and allowing the deduction of six days for 30 days spent in conditions of detention that fell short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention ( see Dîrjan and Ştefan , cited above, § 28). This benefit had impacted on the term of the prison sentences and had given detainees the opportunity of earlier release on parole. Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on their admissibility. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically     1907/15 01/02/2015 Daniel MUNTEANU 16/08/1980     Iaşi Prison 26/07/2013 to14/01/2016 2 years, 5 months, 20 days 402 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 04/07/2018     19665/15 22/04/2015 Ovidiu Gabriel STOICA 14/04/1986 Diana-Elena Dragomir Bucharest Rahova, Colibași and Jilava Prisons 23/10/2014 to 13/04/2018 3 years, 5 months, 22 days 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/10/2014 - 13/04/2018       48518/15 03/11/2015 Alexandru DRĂGULIN 06/11/1987     Iaşi and Mărgineni Prisons 25/07/2014 to 12/05/2016 1 year, 9 months, 18 days 222 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/07/2014 – 25/10/2017       52448/15 18/04/2016 Nicolae-Cristian MOISE 04/06/1981 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova and Colibaşi Prisons 23/10/2014 to 04/04/2016 1 year, 5 months, 12 days 240 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/10/2014 – 28/03/2018       52449/15 23/03/2016 Valentin-Robert MOISE 29/08/1985 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova, Colibași and Jilava Prisons 23/10/2014 to 22/12/2017 3 years and 2 months 222 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/10/2014 – 22/12/2017       54391/15 14/12/2015 Constantin STROIA 18/01/1975     Bacău Police, Bacău and Iaşi Prisons 18/12/2014 to 21/10/2015 10 months, 3 days 228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 18/12/2014 – 21/03/2018           55908/15 21/03/2016 Karoly SZÁSZ 08/11/1989 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Târgu Mureş, Bistriţia, Jilava, Deva and Aiud Prisons 25/02/2013 to 29/11/2017 4 years, 9 months, 4 days 330 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/02/2013 – 29/11/2017       56890/15 24/03/2016 Daniel ROȘU 15/09/1970     Poarta Albă Prison 15/03/2015 to 18/05/2017 2 years and 2 months et 4 days 396 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 16/01/2018       60149/15 12/01/2016 Sebastian CRĂC 07/09/1988     Miercurea Ciuc Prison 20/03/2014 to 08/07/2016 2 year and 3 months and 19 days 270 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 04/02/2014 – 08/11/2017     61761/15 31/03/2016 Marius-Gabriel TEBEICĂ 15/07/1987     Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 10/02/2015 to 20/03/2017 2 years and 1 month and 11 days 156 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 10/02/2015 – 27/10/2017