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

.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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { 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 } .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 } .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 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9443/23 Florian-Daniel GRIGOROIU against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   December 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 application lodged on 31   May 2023, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of his detention (see the appended table for details). THE LAW Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the   Court considers that, for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible. The Court recalls that in Văscăuțanu v. Romania (dec.), no.   10120/23, §§   47–59, 18 November 2025, it held that the remedy, which consists of lodging a complaint with the judge responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty ( plângerea în fața judecătorului de supraveghere a privării de libertate ), provided for by Article   56 of Law   no.   254/2013, has constituted, as of 6 April 2023, an effective remedy enabling individuals who allege that they are being held in inadequate conditions of detention to put an end to their situation that they denounced as being contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In light of all the material in its possession, the Court observes that the applicant, who alleges that he is being held in inadequate conditions of detention, did not indicate that he had pursued the available remedy before the domestic courts (see Văscăuțanu , cited above, §   65). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints concerning the poor conditions of detention (for further details see appended table) must be rejected for failure to exhaust the domestic remedy laid down in Article   56 of Law   no.   254/2013, in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 January 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   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 9443/23 31/05/2023 Florian-Daniel GRIGOROIU 1987   Colibași, Mărgineni, Craiova and Giurgiu Prisons 06/04/2016 pending More than 9 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 19 day(s)