CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juillet 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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sDF4F8089 { width:3.64%; 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 } .s16392215 { width:10.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3146EE6C { width:13.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s382DCD86 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD9818C2 { width:32.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFC602F72 { width:27.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CCA6CB0 { width:3.64%; 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 } .s52CBF179 { width:10.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB852CFEA { width:13.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC7364FC0 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s221234FF { width:32.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7A185EFF { width:27.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36830/15 David SAVU against Romania and 11 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   July 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, 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 argued that the applicants had lost their victim status because 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 was insufficient. The Court notes that in a 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 three 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 the term of the prison sentences and had given 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 the admissibility of those complaints. 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). Furthermore, the applicants were released from prison or were transferred to detention facilities they did not complain about. 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 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. 36830/15 and 39090/16   the applicants also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to a period of detention preceding the detention period specified in the appended table. The Court has examined these complaints 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, they 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. 36830/15 and 39090/16   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 22 July 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     36830/15 09/03/2016 David SAVU 1973     Miercurea Ciuc, Gherla, Aiud and Codlea Prisons 09/03/2015 to 12/12/2019 4 years and 9 months and 4 days   492 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 19/12/2019     58622/15 25/01/2016 Ciprian-Gabriel GANEA 1988     Codlea, Miercurea Ciuc and Mărgineni Prisons 17/02/2015 to 25/01/2019 3 years and 11 months and 13 days   228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 17/02/2015 to 25/01/2019     24405/16 07/09/2016 Costel-Florin APETREI 1980     Bacău County Police and Bacău, Iași and Vaslui Prisons 14/11/2013 to 22/08/2016 2 years and 9 months and 9 days   270 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 14/11/2013 to 17/01/2018     28461/16 06/06/2016 Vasile NEDELUȘ 1968     Mioveni Prison 12/12/2014 to 25/10/2019 4 years and 10 months and 14 days   360 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 12/12/2014 to 28/11/2019     31902/16 28/06/2016 Constantin GĂLUȘCĂ 1956     Bacău Police and Bacău and Iași Prisons 19/07/2015 to 08/09/2017 2 years and 1 month and 21 days   234 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 19/07/2015 to 10/06/2019     38841/16 07/12/2016 Andrei-Florinel TARCAN 1991 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova Prison 27/10/2015 to 27/03/2018 2 years and 5 months and 1 day   294 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 12/08/2015 to 24/11/2019     39090/16 24/08/2016 Ioan-Petru GLIGOR 1981 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Aiud and Timișoara Prisons 22/05/2015 to 20/09/2019 4 years and 3 months and 30 days   474 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 06/12/2019     39620/16 08/11/2016 Alexandru Marian VĂDUVA 1987 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Police and Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 13/07/2013 to 01/02/2018 4 years and 6 months and 20 days   336 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 13/07/2013 to 13/03/2018     44484/16 26/07/2016 Petru-Marian FLUERAȘ 1981 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila and Galați Prisons 17/06/2014 to 27/09/2016 2 years and 3 months and 11 days   Brăila and Galați Prisons 02/06/2017 to 13/02/2018 8 months and 12 days   222 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/05/2014 to 27/09/2016 and 02/06/2017 to 20/02/2018   51397/16 21/09/2016 Costel PATRAȘCU 1987 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galaţi Police and Galaţi and Brăila Prisons 23/07/2013 to 07/09/2018 5 years and 1 month and 16 days   372 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 23/07/2013 to 10/01/2019   65014/16 03/11/2016 Sergiu BOTISAN 1989 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Maramureș County Police and Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 27/04/2015 to 13/03/2018 2 years and 10 months and 15 days   228 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/04/2015 to 26/06/2018   69416/16 29/12/2016 Arun VARGA 1978     Baia Mare Prison 29/01/2016 to 28/08/2017 1 year and 7 months   Baia Mare Prison 21/03/2018 to 17/10/2018 6 months and 27 days 156 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 29/01/2016 to 28/08/2017 and 21/03/2018 to 17/10/2018