CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 juin 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 } .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 } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s21AC8711 { width:6.5%; 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 } .s1A73625D { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF3140BBE { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE3FA7DC0 { width:49.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31B42A0B { width:6.5%; 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 } .sB0B9811C { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D949AD9 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s29C959A6 { width:49.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2427/16 Ion MANOLACHE against Romania and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   June   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 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 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. By a subsequent letter, the Government expressly referred to Vlad v.   Romania (dec.), no.   122/17, 15   November 2022, 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 conditions of detention for the applicants 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. 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 4 July 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     2427/16 25/02/2016 Ion MANOLACHE 1972 Vrancea County Police Station; Focșani, Galați, Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons 04/09/2004 to 29/11/2022 18 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)       38650/16 01/08/2016 Iulian ‑ Petronel COSTEA 1984 Iaşi Prison 24/12/2019 to 23/07/2022 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 18 day(s)       54485/16 03/02/2017 Ştefan VERGA 1961 Galaţi, Giurgiu and Rahova Prisons 04/11/2011 to 23/07/2012 8 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Târgu Ocna Prison Hospital 5 periods between 27/11/2012 and 14/03/2017 2 month(s) and 2 day(s)   Arad Prison 14/01/2018 to 17/09/2021 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)         57033/16 17/10/2016 Nicolae PARASCHIV 1971 Craiova Prison 05/11/2008 to 23/07/2012 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Craiova ‑ Pelendava Prison 6 periods between 24/12/2019 and 01/07/2021 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)       62801/16 21/12/2016 Cătălin   Ioan MARŞAVELA 1984 Braşov County Police Station; Codlea, Jilava, Gherla, Giurgiu, Aiud, Mărgineni, Miercurea   Ciuc and Târgu   Mureş Prisons; Dej, Rahova, Mioveni and Jilava Prison Hospitals 27/06/2003 03/02/2023 19 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s)       43805/19 06/01/2020 Ionuţ IOAN 1985 Rahova, Codlea, Focşani and Botoşani Prisons 15/05/2019 11/02/2021 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 28 day(s)