CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s7B6999F4 { width:4.98%; 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 } .sF7DE0F09 { width:15.34%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD849F2 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s34982FCC { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB70C5DD0 { width:45.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s82450012 { width:4.98%; 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 } .s92C51DD4 { width:15.34%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9F3A370 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3777304F { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D45D27E { width:45.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 59430/16 Bela SZATMARI against Romania and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   January 2024 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) 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 applications must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Since the Court has already upheld the Government’s objection on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it does not consider it necessary to examine further any additional objections of inadmissibility of the present applications raised by the Government. 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 8 February 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 Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration     59430/16 17/02/2017 Bela SZATMARI 1971     Satu Mare, Gherla and Oradea Prisons; Dej Prison Hospital 11/07/2016 to 21/06/2023 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)     1161/18 13/12/2017 Florin PERJU 1980 Valentin Ovidiu Ardelean Arad Vaslui, Iasi, Jilava, Rahova, Tulcea, Aiud and Arad Prisons 07/10/2008 to 23/05/2023 14 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 17 day(s)     43644/20 28/10/2020 Gică PRISTAVU 1988     Iași, Mioveni, Rahova, Giurgiu, Oradea, Poarta Albă and Slobozia Prison 20/04/2009 to 23/07/2012 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Brăila and Iași Prisons 24/12/2019 to 13/07/2023 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s)     47300/20 14/12/2020 Marian TIULIUMEANU 1972     Jilava, Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons 18/01/2002 to 23/07/2012 10 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Jilava, Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons 23/12/2019 to 17/11/2022 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)     48386/20 07/10/2021 Florian-Leonard GAVRILĂ 1988     Jilava Prison 31/01/2020 to 28/10/2021 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 29 day(s)     49319/20 20/10/2020 Călin Cristian CAREBA 1976 Mihai-Lucian Pașca Timișoara Timișoara and Arad Prisons 06/07/2020 to 02/06/2021 10 month(s) and 28 day(s)     52073/20 05/02/2021 Ionuț PRAȚA 1976     Mioveni, Dâmbovița (Mărgineni), Craiova and Arad Prisons 24/12/2019 to 09/01/2023 3 year(s) and 17 day(s)