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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sF48F7EBC { width:5.8%; 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 } .s217C1804 { width:17.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACAF4C61 { width:21.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s33655FED { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF3E0A810 { width:34.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43EB1417 { width:5.8%; 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 } .s19A78FDA { width:17.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .sD4F851A7 { width:21.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6F35431B { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .sA12B1D2 { width:34.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .s6B2A6ABB { width:17.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7701722D { width:21.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3F491E58 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s230BBE34 { width:34.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s946186CA { height:1.6pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 64447/16 Florin KERI against Romania and 3 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 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) 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 about 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.   64447/16 and 65069/16 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 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 18 January 2024.   {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 Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration     64447/16 28/11/2016 Florin KERI 1982 Cezara ‑ Maria Nichita ‑ Costescu Timișoara Bacău, Rahova, Iaşi and Arad Prisons 01/01/2009 to 07/06/2021 12 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 7 day(s)     65069/16 02/11/2016 Constantin RUBINĂ 1984 Cezara ‑ Maria Nichita ‑ Costescu Timișoara Rahova, Arad and Timişoara Prisons 19/08/2008 to 26/01/2022 13 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 8 day(s)     21787/20 18/05/2020 Vasile TIMOCE 1990     Gherla Prison 23/12/2019 12/01/2022 2 year(s) and 21 day(s)     17050/21 21/04/2021 Cătălin DELIVER 1983     Brăila and Giurgiu Prisons 24/12/2019 to 25/07/2023 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)