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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD9371F56 { margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s3C875DAE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; 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 } .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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; 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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25460/16 Relu TEODORESCU against Romania and 9 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 submitted 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 in substance 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 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 impacted the term of the prison sentences, also giving 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, insofar as the conditions of their detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   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     25460/16 24/11/2016 Relu TEODORESCU 1967 Silviana Teodorescu, Bacău Bacău, Iaşi, Tulcea, Vaslui and Găeşti Prisons 26/09/2014 to 05/03/2018 3 years and 5 months and 8 days 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 26/09/2014 to 05/03/2018       27740/16 23/11/2016 Ioan-Gheorghe LUCACI 1968 Vasile Rareș Biro, Satu Mare Rahova, Oradea, Iași and Satu Mare Prisons 16/09/2014 to 01/11/2017 3 years and 1 month and 17 days 216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 16/09/2014 to 01/11/2017     45512/16 07/03/2017 Traian Teodor ȘERBAN 1971 Vasile Rareș Biro, Satu Mare Sălaj County Police Station, Oradea, Gherla and Satu Mare Prisons 27/05/2015 to 20/02/2018 2 years and 8 months and 25 days 174 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/05/2015 to 20/02/2018     46190/16 23/09/2016 Valentin JERDEA 1976     Rahova Prison 24/02/2015 to 08/06/2018 3 years and 3 months and 16 days 354 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/02/2015 to 23/12/2019     51104/16 04/01/2017 Aurelian BRUMAR 1995     Braşov Police Arrest, Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc and Gherla Prisons 07/07/2014 to 21/08/2018 4 years and 1 month and 15 days 306 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/07/2014 to 21/08/2018     53239/16 05/09/2016 Adrian TUDUSCIUC 1980 Vasile Rareș Biro, Satu Mare Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 27/07/2015 to 07/11/2017 2 years and 3 months and 12 days 162 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/07/2015 to 07/11/2017     58449/16 30/09/2016 Georgia-Cristina PAVEL 1979 Emilian-Costel Pavel, Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest and Târgşor Prison 10/07/2015 to 08/11/2017 2 years and 3 months and 30 days 168 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 10/07/2015 to 08/11/2017     62078/16 17/01/2017 Ioan SZABO 1971 Vasile Rareș Biro, Satu Mare Rahova, Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 03/11/2015 to 14/11/2017 2 years and 12 days 120 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 03/11/2015 to 14/11/2017     7187/17 14/02/2017 Ion ADIR 1992     Craiova Prison 07/09/2016 to 17/05/2018 1 year and 8 months and 11 days 234 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/09/2016 to 16/12/2019   10802/17 17/01/2017 Emanuel Ionuț POP 1992 Vasile Rareș Biro, Satu Mare Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 29/09/2016 to 13/12/2017 1 year and 2 months and 15 days 78 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 29/09/2016 to 13/12/2017 s