CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34613/23 Răzvan DIMOFTACHE against Romania lodged on 13 October 2023 communicated on 24 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant claims that, on 14 June 2021, while detained at Poarta Albă prison, he was subjected to ill-treatment by a prison agent. He reported the incident to the prison doctor and made a criminal complaint. This complaint was dismissed by a decision of the prosecutor of 27 December 2023. By a judgment of 20 June 2023, the Medgidia First Instance Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor’s decision, on account that the ill-treatment had not been proved. This court relied on the statements of other detainees heard during the criminal investigation and on a note drafted by the prison nurse on the day of the alleged incident. The court dismissed a forensic certificate, submitted by the applicant and establishing the existence of bruises that could have been caused on 14 June 2021, because it did not corroborate the other evidence. In particular, the court found that the forensic certificate had been delivered ten days after the incident and did not establish with certitude the day when the bruises had been caused. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. Relying on Articles 3, 6 and   13 of the Convention, he alleges that the authorities did not conduct an effective investigation into his allegations.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015 and Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file before the First Instance Court.