CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sDB07D097 { width:123.52pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 60359/15 Marinel-Viorel APOSTU against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended list)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   September 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 deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. By letters sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the time allowed for the submission of their observations or of certain requested information had expired (see the appended table for the relevant dates). The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No reply to these letters has been received by the Court (see details in the appended table) and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the court about a change of address. All the applicants have been released from prison. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the applications (Article   37§   1   (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37   §   1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 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 Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of receipt of the registered letter Time-limit for submission by the applicant of the information requested Date of the applicant’s release from prison     60359/15 23/02/2016 Marinel-Viorel APOSTU 08/06/1976 Vasile Micu Galați 13/11/2019 19/11/2019 Signed by the mother of the applicant’s lawyer   02/01/2020 05/02/2019     13834/16 26/03/2016 Ionuț-Cătălin PORNEALĂ 27/12/1981   21/11/2019 Returned as “unclaimed” 06/01/2020 22/11/2017     19419/16 23/05/2016 Petru POPOI 06/05/1971   13/11/2019 21/11/2019 Signed by the applicant’s sister   02/01/2020 28/12/2017     20582/16 19/05/2016 Ion BĂBUȘ 07/08/1957   13/11/2019 21/11/2019 Signed by the applicant   02/01/2020 20/05/2019     23252/16 29/05/2016 Alexandru-Laurenţiu BĂESCU 10/05/1981   13/11/2019 27/11/2019 Signed by the applicant   02/01/2020 13/12/2017