CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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. 22167/18 Marcel MARILICĂ against Romania and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   December 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 complaints about poor conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table are inadmissible. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for further details). 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 v. Romania (dec.), §§ 24-32, no. 122/17, 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 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 about poor conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Remaining complaints In application no. 22167/18, the applicant 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 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 18 January 2024.     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     22167/18 24/08/2018 Marcel MARILICĂ 1962 Iași and Botoșani Prisons 01/02/2018 to 21/02/2022 4 year(s) and 21 day(s)     6666/20 01/10/2020 Emanuel PUȘCAȘU 1979 Botoșani Prison 05/10/2019 to 24/04/2022 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s)     37206/20 15/09/2020 Decebal-Sergiu PRICOP 1983 Aiud, Deva, Arad Prisons 13/02/2019 to 01/04/2023 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)