CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 novembre 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 } .s37C69537 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC6726222 { width:137.43pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE89D2896 { width:6.24%; 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 } .s271C2E3F { width:12.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s272290D8 { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11ADA21B { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7008EB6 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9D7E781C { width:26.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s87089F78 { width:6.24%; 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 } .s7C4FD47 { width:12.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB72187F6 { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6C38EDA8 { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F87864 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F721B2 { width:26.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19043/16 Petrică ŞTEFOGLU against Romania and 7 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, 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 mainly 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 (nos. 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 in this part 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. Remaining complaints In applications nos. 19043/16, 60132/16 and 61621/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table. The Court has examined these applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit. It follows that this part of applications nos. 19043/16, 60132/16 and 61621/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 10 December 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Armen Harutyunyan   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 Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically     19043/16 07/07/2016 Petrică ŞTEFOGLU 1977   Galați and Brăila Prisons 22/08/2014 to 15/01/2019 4 years and 4 months and 25 days 462 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012-15/01/2019       36287/16 11/07/2016 Daniel-Marian VĂDUVA 1984   Timișoara and Craiova Prisons 23/04/2016 to 17/10/2018 2 years and 5 months and 25 days 240 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/04/2016-03/09/2019       41163/16 16/08/2016 Constantin-Iulian CRAIOVEANU 1989 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Deva Centre for Pre-Trial Detention and Gherla and Aiud Prisons 19/09/2015 to 14/10/2019 4 years and 26 days   282 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 14/09/2015-23/12/2019     45073/16 22/09/2016 Valentin URSAN 1979   Aiud Prison 09/09/2013 to 07/03/2019 5 years and 5 months and 27 days 456 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 20/08/2013-14/11/2019       49463/16 11/08/2016 Octavian-Silviu TĂTARU 1986 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați and Brăila Prisons 03/03/2016 to 16/01/2018 1 year and 10 months and 14 days 132 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 29/01/2016-16/01/2018       60132/16 12/10/2016 Iosif-Adrian MÎȚ 1964 Tudor Vasile Zach Oradea Gherla Prison 27/01/2016 to 04/06/2019 3 years and 4 months and 9 days   498 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/07/2012-04/06/2019       60895/16 11/11/2016 Dumitru ANTOCHE 1965   Bacău County Police Inspectorate and Bacău, Rahova, Focșani, Iasi, Tulcea and Vaslui Prisons 29/01/2013 to 06/08/2019 6 years and 6 months and 9 days   492 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 29/01/2013-05/11/2019     61621/16 23/11/2016 Nicolae ARGHIR 1960 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila County Police Inspectorate and Brăila and Galați Prisons 17/12/2015 to 30/07/2019 3 years and 7 months and 14 days   318 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 13/11/2014-30/07/2019