CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40834/16 Gabriel-Ionuţ FRUNZĂ against Romania and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   November 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 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) Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present applications are inadmissible. 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 the action in tort had become 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 domestic level. The Government expressly referred to Vlad v. Romania (dec.), no.   122/17, 15 November 2022, either directly in its observations or by a subsequent letter, 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 being held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention. Subsequently, in Vlad , 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. For all the above reasons and in the light of all the material in its possession, since the applicants ceased to be held in conditions of detention 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 the appended table for further details), but did not inform the Court of having brought such an action before the domestic courts, their applications must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Government also argued that applications nos. 40834/16, 49556/16, 20093/17, 7661/19, 13217/19, 45032/19, 48845/19, 57262/19 and   7554/20 must be rejected in part as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, because the applicants lost their victim status as they had already benefitted from the remedy introduced by Law no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. Since it has already upheld the Government’s objection on the non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine further the question of incompatibility ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that these applications must be dismissed on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 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 14 December 2023.     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 Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration     40834/16 09/08/2016 Gabriel-Ionuţ FRUNZĂ 1987 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Aiud and Deva (Bârcea Mare) Prisons 09/08/2012 to 19/01/2021 8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s)     49556/16 21/10/2016 Bobi HAGIU 1992     Rahova, Giurgiu, Arad, and Iași Prisons, Târgu Ocna and Dej Prison Hospitals 04/07/2012 30/12/2022 10 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)     2133/17 07/02/2017 Florin-Mircea DOREAȚĂ 1977     Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu, Poarta Albă, Drobeta Turnu Severin, Bistrița and Târgu Jiu Prisons 20/10/1998 to 23/07/2012 13 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu, Poarta Albă, Drobeta Turnu Severin, Bistrița and Târgu Jiu Prisons 18/09/2018 to 11/01/2023 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)     20093/17 07/03/2017 Remus-Florin OPRIȘ 1986 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Bihor County Police Station; Arad, Timișoara, Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 21/04/2015 to 18/08/2021 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s)     7661/19 01/07/2019 Ilie ALEXE 1970     Argeș County Police Station, Mioveni and Târgu-Jiu Prisons 25/08/2016 to 06/08/2021 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 13 day(s)     13217/19 22/04/2019 Ioan ŞULERU 1970     Iași County Police Station, Iași, Târgu -Mureș, Arad, Aiud, Timișoara, Găești Prisons, Târgu-Ocna and Dej Prison Hospitals 17/05/2009 to 27/09/2022 13 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)     45032/19 26/11/2019 Robert-Florentin VASILIU 1977     Vâlcea County Police Station, Mioveni Prison, Mioveni Prison Hospital, Târgu - Jiu Prison 07/03/2018 to 29/09/2022 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s)     48845/19 14/10/2019 Cristinel-Ioan SAVIN 1969     Piatra-Neamț Police Station; Bacău and Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) Prisons 22/01/2019 to 04/11/2022 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)     57262/19 26/11/2019 Vasile-Călin GOGU 1975     Timișoara and Arad Prisons 25/08/2014 to 27/01/2021 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 3 day(s)   7554/20 06/04/2020 Fănel-Cristian DIACONESCU 1970     Dolj County Police Station. Craiova and Pelendava Prisons 01/01/2016 to 12/10/2021 5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)   19043/20 21/09/2020 Ion MANEA 1976     Olt County Police Station 24/09/2015 to 16/12/2015 2 month(s) and 23 day(s)   Craiova and Târgu Jiu Prisons 24/12/2019 to 29/03/2023 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 7 day(s)