CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.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 } .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 } .sE8A3B1A8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .s85869E73 { width:101.92%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sA0BEBB87 { width:5.08%; 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 } .s3310F964 { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE043B711 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s42EC7385 { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D94AE9F { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF576340B { width:28.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1C78B964 { width:5.08%; 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 } .sAA572E2C { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1BC3E3A6 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB7C6448F { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27D0360D { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s70C42402 { width:28.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41688/16 Emil Marius CILIBEANU against Romania and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   March 2022 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 principally 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 mainly that the applicants had lost their victim status because they had benefited 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). That benefit had an impact on the term of the prison sentences 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 the admissibility of these 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). 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 31 March 2022.   {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       41688/16 05/09/2016 Emil Marius CILIBEANU 1975     Slobozia, Poarta Albă and Jilava Prisons 15/09/2015 to   29/08/2017 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15   day(s) 138 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 15/09/2015 to 29/08/2017     72425/16 17/01/2017 Lucian-Valer MAN 1975 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Cluj County Police, Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 05/05/2016 to   01/11/2017 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28   day(s) 102 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 05/05/2016 to 01/11/2017     7088/17 16/01/2017 Dumitru-Andrei GASPAR 1991 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Maramureş County Police, Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 04/07/2014 to   01/07/2017 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28   day(s) 282 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/07/2014 to 25/06/2018     8515/17 17/01/2017 Iosif LAKATOŞ 1987 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Cluj County Police, Gherla and Baia Mare Prisons 24/11/2015 to   11/05/2017 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18   day(s) 216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/11/2015 to 05/02/2019     12202/17 06/02/2017 Alexandru GÁSPÁR 1983 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Sălaj County Police, Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 05/08/2014 to   14/11/2017 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10   day(s) 234 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 05/08/2014 to 14/11/2017     19540/17 02/03/2017 Stelian TAFI 1982 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Arad, Timişoara and Brăila Prisons 03/04/2016 to   16/10/2017 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 14   day(s) 108 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 03/04/2016 to 16/10/2017     39772/17 23/05/2017 Tamer OSMAN 1987 Andreea-Gabriela Cadar Galați Constanţa County Police, Slobozia and Poarta Albă Prisons 01/05/2014 to30/03/2017 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30   day(s) 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 01/05/2014 to 30/03/2017