CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sB96219A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.5pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sB3159364 { width:123.42pt; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 47094/16 and 29992/17 Petru-Teodor LĂCĂTUŞ against Romania and Vasile LUNCAN against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   February 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anja Seibert-Fohr , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , 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) The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The Government argued mainly that 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. The applicants disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to them was insufficient. The Court notes that in the decision Dîrjan and Ştefan 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 Ştefan , cited above, §28). That benefit had an impact on the term of the prison sentences, giving detainees an opportunity of earlier release on parole. Turning to 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 above-mentioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for periods of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants were released from prison or were transferred to detention facilities they are not complaining about. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants were afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 February 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anja Seibert-Fohr   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     47094/16 19/12/2016 Petru-Teodor LĂCĂTUŞ 1987 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Rahova, Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 23/10/2014 to 07/06/2017 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s) Based on the documents submitted by the Government, the applicant benefitted from a 186-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including the one mentioned in column no. 5.     29992/17 11/04/2017 Vasile LUCAN 1994 Alina Gherman Miroslava Bacău, Botoșani and Iași Prisons 10/01/2014 to 19/10/2017 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s) Based on the documents submitted by the Government, the applicant benefitted from a 270-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including the one mentioned in column no. 5.