CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .s494F418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s91F73ADA { margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } .s8728218F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s2A25B3E5 { width:122.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s863E5716 { width:138.53pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2863/16 Vasile-Ioan POPESCU against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9   July   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 applicants disagreed claiming that the compensation they had been awarded had not been sufficient. The Government also raised preliminary objections in applications nos.   4360/16 and 36735/16. However, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on these objections because the applications are inadmissible in any event, for the reasons presented below. The Court notes that in its recent decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v.   Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it 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 3 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 every 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 above-mentioned 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 30 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 Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically     2863/16 24/03/2016 Vasile-Ioan POPESCU 30/01/1949 Codlea Prison 02/12/2014 to 23/01/2018 1 year and 3 months and 21 days 222 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 02/12/2014 – 23/01/2018     4360/16 10/03/2016 Constantin USTUROI 28/05/1991 Codlea Prison 16/08/2012 to 15/11/2017 3 years and 3 months and 4 days 378 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 16/08/2012 – 15/11/2017     10893/16 30/03/2016 Laurențiu ARDELEAN 12/02/1983 Codlea and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons 21/01/2014 to 20/10/2017 3 years and 11 months and 8 days 270 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 21/01/2014 – 19/10/2017     19806/16 09/05/2016 Ilie BÂRSAN 19/07/1989 Mărgineni, Iași and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons 20/11/2014 to 04/01/2017 2 years and 1 month and 16 days 216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 20/11/2014 – 28/11/2017     36735/16 25/07/2016 Lucian BLĂNARU 08/03/1968 Galați Prison 31/10/2013 to 28/07/2016 2 years and 8 months and 29 days 306 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 31/10/2013 – 17/01/2018