CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .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 } .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. 29823/16 Vasile FROSE against Romania and 11 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   November 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   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 (see the appended table for the relevant dates), the friendly settlement procedure being set in motion through the offices of the Registrar upon communication. As no reply was received by the Court from the applicants within the provided deadline, the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. Still no reply was received by the Court from the applicants within the newly provided deadline. By letters sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the Court received no response within the time allowed for the submission of their response and that they were provided with a new deadline for submitting a response (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. The registered letters either returned to the Court as unclaimed or were received by the applicants (see details in the appended table), and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address. Even though all the applicants had been released from prison several years before the date of this decision, the last correspondence from them predominantly dates back several years as well (see the appended table for the relevant dates). 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, in the absence of any correspondence from the applicants for several years and considering that, following the communication of their applications to the Government, no reply was received from the applicants, 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 15 December 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 Date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court Date of communication Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of receipt/ return of the registered letter New time-limit for submission of response by the applicant Date of the applicant’s release from prison     29823/16 04/07/2016 Vasile FROSE 1987     03/03/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 13/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 18/10/2016     30265/16 05/07/2016 Florian ALEXANDRESCU 1987     17/01/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 24/05/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 09/11/2016     40455/16 05/07/2016 Viorel NEAGOE 1975     19/08/2016 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 15/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 24/05/2016     45507/16 29/08/2016 Iuliu-Aurelian GABOR 1990 Domnica Gabor Dumbrava 02/11/2020 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 15/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 13/12/2016     52800/16 29/11/2016 Mircea-Ioan BUD 1989     06/08/2019 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 08/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 16/08/2017     53484/16 12/12/2016 Ioniţă TIMIŞ 1973     24/01/2018 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 24/05/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 15/03/2017     55791/16 16/12/2016 Daniel-Leonid BĂDULESCU 1973     02/01/2017 25/06/2021 05/04/2022 24/05/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 14/12/2016     65028/16 26/10/2016 Mihai FERENTZ 1972 Paul Istrate Seica Mare 06/04/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 15/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 14//02/2017     65413/16 08/12/2016 Francisc MUREŞAN 1970     05/07/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 24/05/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 27/06/2017   71552/16 31/01/2017 Adrian ACHIM 1987     08/03/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 09/06/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 07/12/2016   72162/16 29/12/2016 Gheorghe-Liviu IORGA 1972     06/01/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 13/04/2022 Received by the applicant 03/05/2022 26/12/2016   83546/17 07/12/2017 Marius-Alin BOTEZ 1992 Agustina Botez Bacau 13/12/2017 27/05/2021 05/04/2022 24/05/2022 Returned to sender 03/05/2022 10/10/2017