FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23331/16 Ioan-Liviu CIOC against Romania and 5 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 June 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Tim Eicke , President , Branko Lubarda, 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 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

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 principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

The Government argued mainly 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 to them

was insufficient.

The Court notes that in the 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 because 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, was an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law 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). That benefit had an impact on the term of the prison sentences, giving detainees an opportunity of earlier release on parole.

Turning to the circumstances of the present applications, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of those 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 laid down in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for periods 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 are not complaining about.

The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants were 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 for the periods shown in the appended table are concerned.

In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications in this part 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.

In applications nos. 23331/16, 31130/17 and 35761/17 the applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the conditions of their detention during other periods.

The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 20 July 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke 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 by national authorities

23331/16

08/06/2016

Ioan-Liviu CIOC

1991Timișoara Prison

17/07/2015 to

20/10/2016

1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Timișoara Prison

28/10/2016 to

04/01/2018

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 252-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including those mentioned in column no. 5.

48524/16

02/09/2016

Claudiu MUNTEANU

1973Galaţi Prison

27/02/2016 to

19/01/2017

10 month(s) and 24 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 144-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including the one mentioned in column no. 5.

53397/16

20/10/2016

Mihai-Adrian TRUÈšESCU

1978Poarta Albă Prison

23/08/2012 to

28/08/2012

6 day(s)

Poarta Albă and Slobozia Prisons

01/09/2012 to

18/06/2018

5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 426-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including those mentioned in column no. 5.

31130/17

18/10/2017

Daniel Marian TEODOR

1986Rahova and Jilava Prisons

19/11/2016 to

16/02/2018

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Rahova Prison

17/03/2018 to

28/12/2018

9 month(s) and 12 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 198-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including those mentioned in column no. 5.

35761/17

08/05/2017

Marius Valentin COMAN

1990Biro Vasile RareÅŸ

Satu Mare

Ploiești, Mărgineni and Oradea Prisons

09/03/2013 to

19/04/2016

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

Oradea, Satu Mare and Mărgineni Prisons

26/04/2016 to

01/04/2019

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 480-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in material conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including those mentioned in column no. 5.

69098/17

13/11/2017

Cristian BARBU

1979Deceased in 2018

Jilava and Brăila Prisons

24/10/2017 to

27/03/2018

5 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Based on the documents submitted by the Government, it transpires that the applicant benefitted from a 294-day reduction of his sentence, by virtue of Law no. 169/2017, as compensation for periods spent in conditions of detention which breached Art. 3, including the one mentioned in column no. 5.