CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 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 } .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 } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { 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 } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { 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 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 73587/16 Cornel TUDOR against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   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 application lodged on 25   January 2017, 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 applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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 application is inadmissible. The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The Government argued mainly that the applicant had lost his victim status because he 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 application for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. The applicant disagreed, claiming that the compensation awarded to him 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 one 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 application, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of this complaint. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicant in the present application and, indeed, he had benefitted from it. The domestic authorities, applying the provisions laid down in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicant for the period of detention spent in inadequate conditions about which he complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicant was transferred to a detention facility about which he did not complain and then released from prison. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant has been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victim of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that this application is 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, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anja Seibert-Fohr   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in   days) based on total period calculated by national authorities 73587/16 25/01/2017 Cornel TUDOR 1984 Craiova (including Pelendava) Prison   29/12/2015 to 23/11/2017   1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26   day(s) 156-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no.   169/2017, as compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 29/15/2015 to 20/02/2018.