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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sA6335DE0 { width:112.8%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2DED5BCF { width:4.56%; 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 } .sCC3D65EB { width:10.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s41EA106C { width:15.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4E9F1256 { width:11.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCE701E34 { width:26.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF6397F91 { width:31.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31226D61 { width:4.56%; 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 } .sC21DA1FB { width:10.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD8284A { width:15.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDCBB1D1A { width:11.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s93C4412 { width:26.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s91F74358 { width:31.26%; 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 } .s23FE5D7A { height:24.45pt } .s575C5D7A { height:28.65pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20106/15 Harry ŐTVÖS against Romania and 8 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 to them 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) 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 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 giving the 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). 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     20106/15 25/08/2015 Harry ŐTVÖS 21/06/1978     Miercurea Ciuc Prison 01/01/2013 to 10/03/2017 4 years, 2 months, 8 days 426 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 29/01/2019     61202/15 17/03/2016 Adrian ARDELEANU 28/04/1987     Covasna Country Police and Codlea Prison 19/06/2015 to 18/04/2016 9 months, 30 days 84 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 19/06/2015 – 18/04/2016 and 25/10/2017 – 12/04/2018     904/16 15/12/2015 Dumitru-Essan ISTRATIE 03/03/1990 Carmen Codoban Targu-Jiu Craiova Prison 28/09/2014 to 18/04/2017 2 years and 5 months and 13 days 276 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 28/09/2014 - 16/10/2018     4906/16 13/01/2016 Sorin GHEORGHE 11/05/1982     Codlea Prison 02/09/2014 to 03/01/2017 2 years and 4 months and 2 days 396 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 20/03/2018     7158/16 09/03/2016 Paul-Sorin MIHALACHE 18/02/1988     Rahova and Colibași Prisons 31/03/2015 to 21/08/2018 3 years, 5 months, 1 day 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 31/03/2015 - 21/12/2018     8468/16 04/03/2016 Costin Alexandru MINCU 20/05/1992 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucarest Police detention facilities nos. 1 and 3, Rahova and Jilava Prisons 14/01/2015 to 19/10/2017 2 years, 9 months, 5 days 192 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 14/01/2015 -19/10/2017       9613/16 19/04/2016 Mugurel CHITIC 11/07/1962     Iași, Tulcea, Vaslui Prisons 20/02/2015 to 15/11/2017 2 years and 8 months and 27 days 198 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 21/01/2015 – 15/11/2017     15670/16 18/04/2016 Janos VARGA 30/03/1993     Codlea and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 06/03/2015 to 24/05/2018 3 years and 2 months and 19 days 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 10/03/2014 – 04/08/2014 and 06/03/2015 – 24/05/2018     18010/16 18/04/2016 Liviu PREDA 23/08/1956     Baia Mare Country Police and Gherla Prison 10/03/2015 to 05/01/2017 1 year and 9 months and 27 days 210 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 10/03/2015 – 14/02/2018