CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 35304/16 Constantin STOIAN against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   August 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in different facilities between 27 February 2015 and 3 July 2021 when he was released (for further details see the appended table). He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The Government argued mainly that the applicant had lost his victim status for the detention between 27 February 2015 and 19 December 2019 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 this part of the 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 Government further claimed that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the period of detention from 9 January 2020 to 3 July 2021 when he had been released (for further details see the appended table), as the action in tort had become an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicant, allowing him to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive an adequate and sufficient compensation at domestic level. The applicant did not comment. 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 present one 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 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. 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. 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 period of detention from 27   February 2015 until 19 December 2019 spent in inadequate conditions of which he complained (for further details see the appended table). The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant had been afforded adequate redress for the inadequate conditions of his detention between 27   February 2015 and 19 December 2019 and can no longer claim to be victim of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention for the said period. It follows that this part of 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. The Court further recalls that in Polgar v. Romania , no. 39412/19, §§   94 ‑ 96, 20   July   2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles   1349 and   1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention, and who were no longer, when they lodged their action, being held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention. Subsequently, in Vlad v. Romania (dec.), no. 122/17, §§ 24-32, 15   November 2022, the Court considered it appropriate to apply an exception to the general principle that the effectiveness of a given remedy was to be assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged. For all the above and in the light of all the material in its possession, since the applicant was released and was thus no longer in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention after the tort action had been considered as representing an effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis , Polgar , §   96 and   Vlad , § 23, both cited above, and further details in the appended table), but did not inform the Court of having brought such an action before the domestic courts, this part of his application must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   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   Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities 35304/16 01/08/2016 Constantin STOIAN 1988 Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 1, Rahova, Poarta Albă, Focșani and Colibași Prisons, Poarta Albă Prison Hospital and Colibași Prison Hospital 27/02/2015 to 19/12/2019 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 23 day(s)   Arad Prison 09/01/2020 to 03/07/2021 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 25 day(s) 246 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 27/02/2015 to 19/12/2019