CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; 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 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7037/20 Constantin-Marius STOICA against Romania and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   October 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   Mateja Đurović , 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 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 individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention and who were no longer 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. Although invited, the applicants did not inform the Court of having brought an action in tort before the Romanian courts. Therefore, 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), the Court considers that their applications as regards their detention during the periods described in the appended table below must be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, 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 24 October 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   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     7037/20 25/02/2020 Constantin-Marius STOICA 1981       County Police Station, Rahova and Jilava Prisons 18/02/2017 to 30/11/2023 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s)     10285/20 11/03/2020 Viorel-Robert LUPU 1984       Codlea and Timișoara Prisons 29/11/2019 to 16/02/2021 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 19 day(s)     46281/20 04/12/2020 Mihai-Viorel ŞERBAN 1972       Codlea and Mioveni Prisons 23/12/2019 to 25/06/2024 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 3 day(s)     52655/20 01/03/2021 Ion-Georgian FRUMUŞELU 1985       Prisons of Codlea, Drobeta-Turnu Severin and Vînjuleţ (External Section of Prison of Drobeta-Turnu Severin) 19/12/2019 to 19/11/2023 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s)     29157/21 28/02/2022 Bogdan-Ionel CÎMPAN 1992       Botoşani Prison 13/10/2023 to 07/11/2023 26 day(s)     32276/21 11/10/2021 Constantin-Ştefan MARUNEAC 1977       Iaşi, Botoşani and Bistriţa Prisons 23/12/2019 to 05/02/2022 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)         53684/21 22/11/2021 Nicu HURDUI 1978       Detention Centre of Galaţi; Prisons of Galaţi, Giurgiu and Brăila 03/12/2019 to 27/02/2023 3 year(s) et 2 month(s) et 25 day(s)     56680/21 11/11/2021 Leontin ŢÎRLE 1958   Adrian Stancu Oradea Oradea Prison 11/05/2021 to 27/06/2023 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)