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 } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF431263B { height:25.3pt } .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 } .sCCA0F1D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5165D7A { height:25.15pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sDCE36575 { height:31.45pt } .sA6BA4500 { height:35.1pt } .s5E0F02C9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-1.25pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF7B12F38 { height:33pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16082/15 Marian ZEVEDEI against Romania and 9 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 awarded had not been sufficient. The Court notes that, in its recent decision 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 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 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.   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     16082/15 15/04/2015 Marian ZEVEDEI 01/06/1966     Târgu Jiu Prison 10/04/2014 to 30/01/2018 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s) 390 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 30/01/2018     60880/15 26/04/2016 Raoul-Eduard VLAICU 26/04/1992 Maria-Magdalena Vlaicu Prejmer Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 13/10/2014 to 24/01/2018 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 12 day(s) 276 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 21/08/2014 – 24/01/2018     5479/16 29/03/2016 Florin BRĂTIANU 03/02/1977   Rahova and Colibași Prisons 17/06/2014 to 01/09/2016 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s) 240 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 07/06/2014 – 07/11/2017     10885/16 06/04/2016 Alexandra Paula Roxana ION 21/09/1986 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 1 and Târgșorul Nou Prison 12/09/2014 to 18/10/2018 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 7 day(s) 288 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 12/09/2014 – 18/10/2018     13407/16 24/05/2016 Radu-Vasile HEGEDÜS 15/05/1985 Vasile Rareș Biro Satu Mare Bihor (Oradea) County Police Station and Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 26/11/2014 to 28/08/2018 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 3 day(s) 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/11/2014 – 28/08/2018     20661/16 14/06/2016 Gheorghe-Ramiro ION 04/08/1972     Bucharest Police Station no. 12 and Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 25/10/2012 to 20/11/2018 6 year(s) and 27 day(s) 438 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/10/2012 – 20/11/2018     31333/16 28/05/2016 Cătălin VLAD 26/07/1992 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați Police Station and Galați and Brăila Prisons 21/08/2014 to 06/02/2018 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17 day(s) 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 21/08/2014 – 06/02/2018         35047/16 08/06/2016 Lucian-Ilie FEKETE 04/09/1984 Ovidiu Kalman Mureșan Silaghi Satu Mare Oradea Prison 09/12/2015 to 06/11/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s) 270 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 09/12/2015 – 22/05/2019     38092/16 25/07/2016 Iulian-Jony SZÜCS 22/03/1988     Maramureș Police Station, Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 08/05/2014 to 14/11/2017 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s) 252 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 08/05/2014 – 14/11/2017   38176/16 21/07/2016 Alexandru Tiberiu HURDUGACI 09/07/1983 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova Prison 06/05/2016 to 22/09/2017 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s) 132 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 06/05/2016 – 07/03/2018