CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s749C56BD { margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sCA386EC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18551/16 Vasilică ANCHIDIN against Romania and 14 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   January 2021 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 about 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 argued 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 been insufficient. 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 impact on the term of the prison sentences giving the detainees an 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 in respect of the periods specified in the appended table. 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. 18551/16, 24394/16, 34095/16, and 38292/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the periods of detention 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. 18551/16, 24394/16, 34095/16, and 38292/16 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 11 February 2021.   {signature_p_2}   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     18551/16 03/05/2016 Vasilică ANCHIDIN 1975     Bacău, Vaslui, Tulcea and Iaşi Prisons 25/05/2015 to 02/04/2017 1 year and 10 months and 9 days 162 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 05/02/2015 - 29/03/2015 and 25/05/2015 - 08/11/2017     24394/16 01/08/2016 Valentin VELEA 1974 Velea Marcela Galati Galați, Brăila and Tulcea Prisons 03/06/2015 to 19/02/2019 3 years and 8 months and 17 days 468 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/12/2012 - 19/02/2019     34095/16 01/07/2016 Ionel CRISTEA 1976 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons 28/09/2015 to 21/11/2018 3 years and 1 month and 25 days 438 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 21/11/2018     36792/16 20/07/2016 Cristian NICOLAI 1983     Galați and Brăila Prisons 07/03/2014 to 14/11/2017 3 years and 8 months and 8 days 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 14/11/2017     38292/16 29/07/2016 Aurelian MIHAI 1985     Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prison 13/02/2014 to 15/09/2016 2 years and 7 months and 3 days 384 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 31/10/2017     42369/16 21/09/2016 Gheorghe SĂNDULEASA 1981     Iași and Miercurea Ciuc Prisons 29/04/2015 to 22/08/2017 2 years and 3 months and 25 days 324 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 29/04/2015 - 29/11/2019     42427/16 19/09/2016 Petrică-Iulian ALUPEI 1993 Fernandez Pinilla Maria Del Carmen Alicante Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 5, Galați County Police Station, Tichilești, Bacău, Brăila and Galați Prisons 26/03/2014 to 12/02/2019 4 years and 10 months and 18 days 342 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 26/03/2014 - 23/12/2019     43923/16 24/10/2016 Constantin ȘTEFĂNESCU 1971     Rahova and Colibași Prisons 17/04/2015 to 10/06/2019 4 years and 1 month and 25 days 330 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 17/04/2015 - 23/12/2019     45054/16 25/07/2016 Cătălin HALIUC 1979 Biro Vasile Rareș Satu Mare Satu Mare County Police Station, Oradea, Arad and Satu Mare Prisons 09/02/2015 to 09/10/2018 3 years and 8 months and 1 day 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 09/02/2015 - 09/10/2018   45062/16 26/07/2016 Marian CORNEA 1980 Mărgărit Ionela Bucarest Galaţi and Brăila Prisons 25/09/2014 to 17/07/2018 3 years and 9 months and 23 days 270 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/09/2014 - 17/07/2018   45612/16 29/08/2016 Robert KÖPE-FALNAGY 1986     Miercurea-Ciuc, Mărgineni, Arad, Dej and Jilava Prisons 05/12/2012 to 25/04/2017 4 years and 4 months and 21 days 474 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 30/10/2012 - 03/09/2019   46783/16 25/10/2016 Istvan KOSKODAR 1977 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Târgu-Mureş and Aiud Prisons 16/12/2015 to 19/03/2019 3 years and 3 months and 4 days 210 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 16/12/2015 - 19/03/2019   46831/16 13/12/2016 Constantin-Adrian NĂSTASE 1983     Câmpina Arrest, Mărgineni, Ploieşti, Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 17/01/2013 to 13/02/2018 5 years and 28 days 172 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 17/01/2013 - 13/02/2018   47154/16 29/08/2016 Alin-Gabriel ANDREI 1991 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons 30/07/2015 to 12/07/2017 1 year and 11 months and 13 days 312 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 30/07/2015 - 23/12/2019   47482/16 08/11/2016 Andrei SILEANU 1970 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Rahova Prison 02/03/2016 to 24/04/2018 2 years and 1 month and 23 days 156 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 02/03/2016 - 24/04/2018