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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8C69B6DF { width:6.38%; 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 } .sC7A9A27 { width:15.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s47D419B3 { width:18.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s61150AF2 { width:19.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s436A7A0A { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CCCEE1C { width:23.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF4A596C4 { width:6.38%; 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 } .s5A89671D { width:15.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62D8DB4B { width:18.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5F886E99 { width:19.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s677B0466 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8E65F99 { width:23.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52459/16 Alexandru Lucian NEACȘU against Romania and 4 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 for some periods of their detentions (see the appended table) all the applicants had lost their victim status because they had benefitted 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 the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Moreover, as regards the applicants from applications nos. 52459/16, 71012/16, 18028/17, for the remaining periods of detention, 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 applicants disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to them by Law no. 169/2017 was insufficient. As regards the Government’s objection concerning the loss of victim status, the Court notes that in the decision Dîrjan and Ștefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible because 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, was an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law 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 Ștefan , 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 applications, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of those complaints. The above ‑ mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions laid down in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ștefan, awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, insofar as the conditions of their detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. In view of the above, the Court finds that for the periods of detention covered by Law   no.   169/2017 the applications are 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. As regards the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention (see the appended table, applications nos. 52459/16, 71012/16, 18028/17) and the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, 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 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 the remaining periods of detention (see the appended table, applications nos.   52459/16, 71012/16, 18028/17) must be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In application no. 52459/16 the applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined these complains 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, they 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 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 Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated by national authorities     52459/16 29/08/2016 Alexandru Lucian NEACȘU 1984     Arad, Colibași and Craiova Prisons 20/05/2015 to 20/05/2021 6 year(s) and 1 day(s) 236 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/03/2015 and 23/12/2019     71012/16 23/01/2017 Nicolae-Cristian NEAGOE 1975     Argeș County Police and Colibași Prison 05/11/2015 to 07/12/2022 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 3 day(s) 246 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 05/11/2015 - 23/12/2019     18028/17 04/04/2017 Vasilică Petru Sami STOICA 1995 Claudia Nadina Daciana Cândea Timisoara Caraș Severin County Police and Arad, Craiova, Drobeta Turnu Severin and Timișoara Prisons 28/10/2014 to 30/04/2021 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 3 day(s) 180 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 28/10/2014 - 22/12/2019     22111/17 13/03/2017 Aurel CĂLDĂRARIU 1957 Nicolae Cioroianu Calafat Craiova, Pelendava, Tărgu-Jiu Prisons 25/02/2015 to 17/11/2019 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s) 342 days in compensation for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 25/02/2015 ‑ 17/11/2019     31976/17 17/05/2017 Paul-Petru DISĂGILĂ 1980     Jilava and Timișoara Prisons 13/02/2017 to 03/05/2018 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s) 144 days in compensation for a total period spent in detention in inadequate conditions from 13/02/2017 - 03/05/2018