CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .sA9AB558A { width:115.4%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD413C666 { width:6.8%; 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 } .sBC096341 { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1EA15468 { width:28.9%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4E4E323 { width:47.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26891C { width:6.8%; 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 } .s19A7091D { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A1E92D9 { width:28.9%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s403E5EB3 { width:47.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1E434D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sD72B0A5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 64443/16 and 10967/17 Nicolae-Silviu GRĂJDAN against Romania and Marian-Robert ALEXANDRU against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   March   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , 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) Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present applications are inadmissible. The applicants complained 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. Therefore, they 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 conditions of detention for the applicants who were no longer being held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention. Subsequently, in Vlad v.   Romania (dec.), no.   122/17, 15 November 2022, §§   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 in the part as indicated in the appended table must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that these complaints must be dismissed on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In application no. 10967/17 the applicant raised an additional complaint under Article   3 of the Convention related to the conditions of his detention spent in Arad Prison during various periods between 14   June   2013 and 23   December   2019. By a letter received on 24   January   2024, the applicant informed the Court that he had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided for by Law no.   169/2017 during that period and that his application concerned the inadequate conditions of detention subsequent to the date the respective compensatory remedy was no longer in force. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of his application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and it should therefore be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the part of application no.   10967/17 concerning the applicant’s detention in Arad Prison during various periods between 14   June   2013 and 23   December   2019 out of the list of cases further to the withdrawal by the applicant; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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     64443/16 21/02/2017 Nicolae ‑ Silviu GRĂJDAN 1987 Rahova Prison 14/04/2020 to 03/04//2023 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21 day(s)     10967/17 28/02/2017 Marian ‑ Robert ALEXANDRU 1979 Rahova Prison 24/12/2019 to 05/03/2023 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)