CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 septembre 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 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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. 60214/16 Viorel IORDĂNESCU against Romania and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   September 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 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 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 laid down 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 the detention facilities they complained 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 application no. 64077/16 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application 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 13 October 2022.     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 by national authorities     60214/16 09/01/2017 Viorel IORDĂNESCU 1978     Craiova, Rahova and Tîrgu Jiu Prisons 20/01/2015 to 16/01/2018 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28 day(s) 216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 20/01/2015 to 16/01/2018     60889/16 15/11/2016 Corneliu-Ionuț JUNCU 1983     Iași, Rahova and Vaslui Prisons 26/01/2016 to 04/07/2018 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 day(s) 174 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 26/01/2016 to 04/07/2018     63023/16 21/02/2017 Vasile CIUTACU 1961     Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons 18/11/2014 to 13/12/2017 3 year(s) and 26 day(s) 216 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 18/11/2014 to 13/12/2017     64077/16 16/12/2016 Mihai DĂSCĂLETE 1959     Colibași, Craiova, Focșani, Giurgiu, Slobozia, Rahova and Tîrgu Jiu Prisons 09/02/2015 to 10/09/2019 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s) 324 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 09/02/2015 to 10/09/2019     72810/16 23/11/2016 Marius-Pantelimon BANEA 1977 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați County Police and Brăila and Galați Prisons 02/08/2015 to 03/05/2018 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 2 day(s) 198 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 02/08/2015 to 03/05/2018     72844/16 23/11/2016 Vasile DRĂGĂLAI 1983 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Brăila and Galați Prisons 27/07/2016 to 31/10/2017 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s) 90 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/07/2016 to 31/10/2017     74861/16 05/01/2017 Mihai FÎNTÎNARU 1977     Bacău, Iași and Vaslui Prisons 26/04/2016 to 29/11/2017 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 day(s) 114 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 26/04/2016 to 29/11/2017     76044/16 23/11/2016 Nicolae BALAZS 1974 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu-Mare Satu Mare County Police and Satu Mare Prison 17/06/2015 to 21/11/2017 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) 174 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 17/06/2015 to 21/11/2017     2752/17 12/12/2016 Mannix-Mihai RACOLȚEA 1972     Bistrița and Codlea Prisons 09/02/2018 to 04/12/2018 9 month(s) and 26 day(s) 54 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 09/02/2018 to 04/12/2018   14797/17 14/02/2017 Adrian-Ioan PETER 1968 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu-Mare Baia Mare Prison 18/10/2016 to 27/02/2018 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s) 96 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 18/10/2016 to 27/02/2018