FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38545/16
Constantin MINESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 February 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2016,
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 applicant, Mr Constantin Minescu, is a Romanian national born in 1982.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of detention served between 4 February 2004 and 12 May 2020 in several Romanian detention facilities. His complaints were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that, for the reasons stated below, the application is inadmissible.
The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention provides that it should not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court and contains no relevant new information. In verifying whether two cases are essentially the same, it takes into account the identity of the parties in both proceedings, the legal provisions on which they are based, the nature of the complaints and the compensation which they seek to obtain (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002, and Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 15472/02, 14 February 2006).
In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant had lodged another application, registered under no. 48026/19, raising under Article 3 a complaint similar to the one raised in the context of the present application. Application no. 48026/19, adducing evidence which has also been submitted in the instant case, was struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention, on the basis of a friendly settlement (see Irimia and Others v. Romania [Committee] (dec.), nos. 64730/16 and 2 others, 2 June 2022).
The Court must therefore determine whether, in the present case, the application is “substantially the same” as the matter submitted to it in application no. 48026/19.
In the present case, the applicant submitted that he had been held in inadequate conditions of detention between 4 February 2004 and 12 May 2020 in the Iași County Police Station, Iași, Mărgineni and Botoșani Prisons, and Târgu Ocna Prison Hospital. He complained about, inter alia, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, insufficient fresh air and natural light, and insufficient and inadequate furniture.
In application no. 48026/19, the applicant submitted that he had been held in inadequate conditions of detention between 4 February 2004 and 12 May 2020 in the Iași County Police Station, Iași, Mărgineni and Botoșani Prisons, and Jilava and Târgu Ocna Prison Hospital, complaining about, inter alia, overcrowding, insufficient fresh air and natural light, infestation of cell with insects and rodents.
By comparing the two applications, the Court notes that the same applicant raised the same complaints with regards to the conditions of detention in the Romanian prisons, during the same period, and that he has not submitted any evidence that would constitute a new fact within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see, a contrario, Delgado v. France, no. 38437/97, Commission decision of 9 September 1998, and C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1365/07, 13 March 2007).
It follows that since the present application raises “essentially the same” complaints as the ones examined by the Court in application no. 48026/19 lodged by the applicant, it falls within the ambit of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention and must therefore be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 2 and 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2024.
Viktoriya Maradudina Anja Seibert-Fohr
Acting Deputy Registrar President