CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 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 } .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 } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE9FED4F7 { width:166.58pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF19CFCD5 { width:14.08%; 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 } .sA4EACBD { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E8F6944 { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC313AD92 { width:24.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s733E23FC { width:33.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s67E07E2E { width:14.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s171269E6 { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24B851EC { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2B425D1 { width:24.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE653E67B { width:33.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 71046/16 Marius Petru HETES against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   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 application lodged on 23   November 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, and the observations submitted by the applicant in response, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Biro, a lawyer practising in Satu   Mare. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status because he 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 application for being incompatible ratione   personae with the provisions of the Convention. The applicant disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to him had been insufficient. The Court notes that in its decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v.   Romania ((dec.), nos.   14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it has examined similar applications as the one 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 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. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the present case, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of this complaint. The above ‑ mentioned remedy was available to the applicant in the present application and, indeed, he benefitted from it. Thus, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicant for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which he complained (for further details see the appended table). The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant has been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention insofar as the conditions of his detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. It follows that the application is 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, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2023. {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Tim Eicke   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) 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 71046/16 23/11/2016 Marius Petru HETES 1988 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Rahova, Oradea and Satu   Mare Prisons 13/08/2015 to 08/11/2017 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) 150 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 13/08/2015 to 08/11/2017