CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 12 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22027/19 A.G.B. against Romania lodged on 27 May 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prison authorities’ alleged failure to protect the applicant’s vulnerability on account of his homosexuality. The applicant was detained in Codlea prison from December 2018 to June 2020. He claims that he could not benefit from an open prison regime because the prison did not set up a cell for vulnerable detainees; that the inmates threatened and verbally abused him in the cell and in the prison courtyard; that he did not benefit from conjugal visits; that the prison did not test for sexually transmitted diseases; and that he could not work because of his sexual orientation. He lodged several complaints with the prison administration and the courts. On 14 March 2019, the Braşov first instance court rejected his complaint and found that the prison authorities had set up a cell for detainees that were in a situation similar to that of the applicant or that were included in other categories of vulnerabilities. The applicant complains that, while detained in Codlea prison, he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, and/or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention, with regard to the Codlea prison authorities’ alleged failure to take adequate measures to protect him on account of his vulnerability and sexual orientation?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no.   41288/15, §§   149-150, 14 January 2020)?