CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB942DEF6 { width:5.4%; 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 } .s2D94AE9F { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s817AE20C { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6B50B0D { width:18.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s24C856B6 { width:35.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC756A51C { width:5.4%; 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 } .s27D0360D { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADA854A5 { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA48E3F3 { width:18.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2FC7B8DE { width:35.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9633/20 Filon STAN against Romania and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , 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) Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that, for the reasons stated below, the present applications are inadmissible. The applicants complained principally of 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. The Government expressly referred to Vlad v. Romania (dec.), no.   122/17, 15 November 2022, in its observations, 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. 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 9 October 2025.     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     9633/20 18/08/2020 Filon STAN 1960       Craiova-Pelendava, Jilava, Bacău Prisons 24/12/2019 to 18/10/2024 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 25 day(s)     13997/22 05/04/2022 Silviu-Ionuţ TINCA 1999       Mioveni Prison 29/09/2021 to 07/04/2025 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 10 day(s)     22208/22 26/04/2022 Florentin BOULEAN 1974       Aiud, Mioveni and Târgu Jiu Prisons 27/04/2021 to 13/09/2022 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)     24773/22 09/06/2022 Vasile-Robertino VASILESCU 1975       Târgu Jiu Prison 04/11/2021 to 02/07/2023 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)     27048/22 03/10/2022 Ion BRĂNESCU 1977       Mioveni, Arad and Timișoara Prisons 21/05/2021 to 25/09/2024 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 day(s)     39701/22 09/09/2022 Corina KALLO 1986   Imre Roberto Kallo Cluj-Napoca Alba County Police Station, Gherla Prison 23/09/2020 to 29/03/2023 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)     49348/22 29/11/2022 Virgil HASAN 1999       Buzău and Ialomița County Police Stations; Focșani, Dâmbovița and Brăila Prisons 18/08/2021 to 24/05/2024 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s)     50722/22 24/11/2022 Andrei VILAGI 1973       Gherla Prison 24/12/2019 to 15/05/2023 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s)