CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .sF5DDD244 { width:144.1pt; 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 } .s423F5D7A { height:27.05pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26985/16 Nicolae-Florin NIMIGAN against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   June 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, 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. The Government argued mainly 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 to them was insufficient. The Court notes that in the 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 because 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, was an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law 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 applications, 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 prison or were transferred to detention facilities they are not complaining 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. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications 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 6 July 2023.     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 Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities     26985/16 30/05/2016 Nicolae-Florin NIMIGAN 1992     Aiud Prison 18/06/2015 to 29/01/2018 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 day(s) 234 days in compensation for a total period of 1,197 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 21/08/2012 – 22/12/2019     37995/16 05/09/2016 Viorel TELEOACĂ 1965     Rahova and Jilava Prisons 10/12/2015 to 03/05/2018 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s) 192 days in compensation for a total period of 962 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 10/12/2015 – 03/05/2018     46473/16 29/08/2016 Marian GRIGORAŞ 1970     Galați Prison 15/12/2012 to 29/08/2016 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s) 540 days in compensation for a total period of 3,143 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 – 22/12/2019     31106/17 13/04/2017 Petrică-Virgiliu ZAMFIR 1968 Constanța Vișan Galați Tulcea and Rahova Prisons 31/03/2015 to 15/11/2017 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s) 192 days in compensation for a total period of 961 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 31/03/2015 – 15/11/2017     37080/17 27/10/2017 Nicolae PEANCI 1968     Slobozia and Poarta Albă Prisons 08/11/2016 to 15/06/2018 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s) 114 days in compensation for a total period of 585 days spent in detention in inadequate conditions between 08/11/2016 – 15/06/2018