CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 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 } .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 } .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 } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s8D022577 { width:7.42%; 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 } .sB3309F68 { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66229616 { width:25.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7A23F82A { width:44.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE55B71A9 { width:7.42%; 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 } .sF83E136D { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0EB862E { width:25.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11ADB2C8 { width:44.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19403/17 Gheorghe-Florin SONICA against Romania and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   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 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 applicant, 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 that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as an action in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at the domestic level. By a subsequent letter, the Government expressly referred to Vlad v.   Romania ((dec.), no.   122/17, 15 November 2022) and invited the Court to declare the cases inadmissible. 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, held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention. Subsequently, in Vlad v. Romania (cited above, §§   24 ‑ 32), 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. Although invited, the applicants did not inform the Court of having brought an action in tort before the Romanian courts. Therefore, in the light of all the material in its possession, since the applicants were no longer in detention conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention after the moment when the tort action had been considered as representing an effective remedy (see, mutatis   mutandis , Polgar , § 96, and Vlad , § 23, both cited above; see for further details the appended table), the Courts considers that their applications in that part must be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In application no. 14172/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article   3 of the Convention related to the conditions of his detention during other periods not discussed above. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 19 October 2023.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   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 Facility Start and end date Duration     19403/17 03/04/2017 Gheorghe-Florin SONICA 1989 Târgu Mureș and Găești Prisons 18/12/2019 to 28/04/2021 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)     37276/18 20/09/2018 Cătălin HABINA 1985 Baia Mare Prison 25/03/2020 to 07/02/2021 10 month(s) and 14 day(s)     36003/19 24/07/2019 András-Levente RANCZ 1981 Aiud and Gherla Prisons 23/12/2019 to 06/09/2022 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s)     14172/20 24/04/2020 Constantin-Marian COJOCARU 1992 Bacău Prison 17/02/2012 to 23/07/2012 5 month(s) and 7 day(s)   Tulcea Prison 23/12/2019 to 07/01/2022 2 year(s) and 16 day(s)