FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 4613/17 and 6316/17 Cristian Gabriel MUREȘAN against Romania and Cristian AMARIE against Romania

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, 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”). In application no. 6316/17 the applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention during an additional period in Botoșani prison (see appended table below).

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Government argued that the applicants had lost their victim status because they had benefitted from the remedy offered by Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. They asked the Court to reject the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.

The applicants disagreed claiming that the compensation awarded was insufficient.

The Court notes that in a recent decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible considering that the applicants had lost their victim status. The Court noted that Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences, adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017) and in force between October 2017 and December 2019, had been an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law had set forth a compensatory remedy, available for periods of detention ranging from 2012 to 2019 and allowing the deduction of six days for 30 days spent in conditions of detention that fell short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Dîrjan and Ştefan , cited above, § 28). This benefit had impact on the term of the prison sentences giving detainees a possibility of earlier release on parole.

Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of these complaints. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants were released from prison or were transferred to detention facilities they did not complain about.

The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, insofar as the conditions of their detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. It follows that the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 16 December 2021.

Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan 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

Domestic compensation awarded

(in days)

based on total period calculated domestically

4613/17

19/12/2016

Cristian Gabriel MUREȘAN

1995Vasile RareÅŸ Biro

Satu Mare

Oradea, Bistriţa and Satu Mare Prisons

19/05/2016 to

15/05/2018

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)

138 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 19/05/2016 to 15/05/2018.

6316/17

06/02/2017

Cristian AMARIE

1978IaÅŸi and BotoÅŸani Prisons

22/08/2013 to

23/12/2019

6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)

462 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 17/07/2013 to 23/12/2019 .