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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s45700B88 { width:6.26%; 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 } .sAB3F9575 { width:19.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBCBC14A4 { width:21.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3485BC43 { width:16.4%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s13DDF0BA { width:36.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDC44ED79 { width:6.26%; 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 } .sD7B8BDFE { width:19.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4084FB05 { width:21.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s37E74328 { width:16.4%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8BA85A59 { width:36.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s148EE8B1 { height:41.3pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44311/16 Ciprian GAVRILĂ 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 their 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 complaints must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s additional objections as to the admissibility of these applications and decides that the applicants’ complaints in respect of the period described in the appended table must be dismissed on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In applications nos.   44311/16, 14609/17 and 7933/20, the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of detention served during other periods. 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 applications 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 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     44311/16 22/07/2016 Ciprian GAVRILĂ 1983 Mihai Lucian Pașca Timisoara Timișoara and Arad Prisons 24/05/2016 to 19/04/2022 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 27 day(s)     1660/17 25/01/2017 Gabriel OLTEANU 1978     Bucharest Police Station No. 19; Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 11/12/2009 to 25/06/2023 13 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 15 day(s)     14609/17 07/04/2017 Claudiu-Eugen BÁN 1982 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Aiud and Deva Prisons 24/12/2019 to 07/03/2022 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 day(s)     18575/17 03/07/2017 Vasile CHIRIŢA 1965     Dâmbovița (Mărgineni), Botoșani and Găești Prisons 12/07/2019 to 30/03/2021 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)     59856/17 10/08/2017 Ioan LASCU 1959     Zalău County Police Station; Oradea, Jilava, Arad, Satu Mare Prisons Hospital 14/09/2009 to 16/02/2022 12 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 3 day(s)     72242/17 12/01/2018 Vasile FLORESCU 1952     Târgu Ocna and Poarta Albă Prison Hospitals and Bistrița, Tulcea, Rahova, Jilava, Mărgineni, Slobozia, Aiud, Galați and   Brăila Prisons 24/10/2016 to 18/10/2023 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s)     7933/20 18/05/2020 Romeo-Gavril ROSTAŞ 1979     Gherla Prison 08/03/2018 to 01/04/2022 4 year(s) and 24 day(s)     29914/20 30/09/2020 Dan-Grigore DRAGOȘ 1971     Rahova, Gherla, and Arad Prison 14/12/2017 to 03/03/2022 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 18 day(s)     35307/20 21/09/2020 Gheorghe Dănuţ PAL 1978     Dâmbovița (Mărgineni) Prison 20/03/2020 to 27/04/2022 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)   49389/20 07/12/2020 Mihai-Ştefan ZSOLDOS 1990     Gherla and Bistrița Prisons; Dej and Jilava Prison Hospital 24/12/2019 to 19/09/2023 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 27 day(s)   52989/20 05/01/2021 Marinel HODOIU 1969     Gorj County Police Station; Craiova Prison 26/09/2011 to 23/07/2012 9 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Craiova and Arad Prisons 24/12/2019 to 26/07/2021 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 3 day(s)