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 } .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 } .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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48875/16 Alexandru LĂCĂTUŞ 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 31   January 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, and the applicant’s observations in response, 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 principally about the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The Court notes that the Government raised an objection of inadmissibility in respect of this application because of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of his detention, 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 adequate and sufficient compensation at domestic level. The Court 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 no longer being held 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, 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 48875/16 31/01/2017 Alexandru LĂCĂTUŞ 1970 Codlea Prison 24/12/2019 to 18/01/2022 2 year(s) and 26 day(s)