CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 51301/16 Liviu-Gheorghe IANCU against Romania and 11 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   October 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 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, who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received by the Court. By letters sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the time allowed for the submission of their observations 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). 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 28 October 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 Date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of receipt of the registered letter New time-limit for submission of observations by the applicant Date of the applicant’s release from prison     51301/16 10/11/2016 Liviu-Gheorghe IANCU 1977     12/05/2017 03/06/2021 Returned to the Court on 30/06/2021 (according to the official website of Romania’s Postal Service) 01/07/2021 26/04/2017     52526/16 07/11/2016 Ion Răzvan TUDOSĂ 1979     19/09/2017 07/07/2021 Returned to the Court on 14/08/2021 (according to the official website of Romania’s Postal Service) 04/08/2021 29/08/2017     59169/16 26/10/2016 Marin NEGOIȚĂ 1973     26/10/2016 07/07/2021 19/07/2021 Illegible signature 04/08/2021 13/12/2016     60946/16 14/11/2016 Alexandru ROTARIU 1983     29/05/2017 07/07/2021 Returned to the Court as “unclaimed” on 07/09/2021 04/08/2021 03/05/2017     62102/16 17/11/2016 Alexandru DUMITRU 1962     02/03/2017 07/07/2021 16/07/2021 Signed for receipt by the applicant’s daughter 04/08/2021 24/10/2017     69433/16 16/12/2016 Constantin OPRINA 1982     08/03/2017 07/05/2021 The letter was sent to the prison address and returned to the Court on 19/07/2021 as “applicant released” A previous letter sent to the home address had been handed over to the applicant’s mother on 05/10/2020 04/06/2021 29/08/2018     13991/17 23/03/2017 Doina-Maria DOBRE 1974 Gina-Nicoleta Ilie Bucharest 23/03/2017 03/06/2021 Returned to the Court on 01/07/2021 (according to the official website of Romania’s Postal Service) 01/07/2021 06/12/2016     30362/17 04/04/2017 Constantin SEICA 1967     04/04/2017 07/07/2021 21/07/2021 Illegible signature 04/08/2021 04/10/2016     33281/17 10/06/2017 Victor STANCIU 1982 Doru Ristea Bucharest 10/06/2017 12/05/2021 Returned to the Court on 05/06/2021 (according to the official website of Romania’s Postal Service) 09/06/2021 12/01/2017   39800/17 22/05/2017 Ferencz-Alfréd BARICZ 1973     22/05/2017 07/07/2021 22/07/2021 Signed for receipt by the applicant 04/08/2021 19/05/2017   43971/17 12/06/2017 Victor BĂLĂCEANU 1956     10/10/2017 07/07/2021 Returned to the Court as “unclaimed” on 07/09/2021 04/08/2021 26/09/2017   9193/20 27/03/2020 Alexandru ȘTEFAN 1979     27/03/2020 11/05/2021 Returned to the Court on 10/06/2021 (according to the official website of Romania’s Postal Service) 08/06/2021 02/09/2020