CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF5DDD244 { width:144.1pt; 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 } .s34A310D6 { width:101.42%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC085C23 { width:3.78%; 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 } .sB47D167C { width:9.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDD118D98 { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA439CB1E { width:13.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4DB80EE1 { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s91D5B88E { width:11.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s335E46F { width:8.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC26FB1C { width:3.78%; 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 } .s7D354C { width:9.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF34E8F46 { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s303881D7 { width:13.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A11E46B { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30C15D4B { width:11.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD82CE2D9 { width:8.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 50275/16 Aurel VASILE against Romania and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   May   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   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. No reply was received by the Court from the applicants within the 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). No reply to the letters has been received by the Court 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 also dates back several years (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 no reply was received to the Court’s letters, 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 25 May 2023.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Tim Eicke   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 communication to the Court Date of Communication Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of return/delivery of the registered letter New time ‑ limit for submission of response by the applicant Date of the applicant’s release from prison     50275/16 23/09/2016 Aurel VASILE 1984     10/02/2017 23/09/2021 15/06/2022 07/07/2022 Returned to the sender 13/07/2022 20/12/2016     23520/17 20/03/2017 Nicolae ȚĂPAR 1956 Tudor Horea Jucan Cluj-Napoca 27/03/2017 23/09/2021 20/06/2022 04/07/2022 Delivered to the applicant 18/07/2022 20/09/2016     41883/17 03/07/2017 Csaba ORBÁN 1978     28/08/2017 23/09/2021 20/06/2022 15/07/2022 Returned to the sender 18/07/2022 09/08/2017