ȚUNEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19389/20
Filip-Adrian ȚUNEA against Romania
and 9 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 January 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Anne Louise Bormann, 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”).

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.

Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present applications are inadmissible.

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

The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as the action in tort had become an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive adequate and sufficient compensation at domestic level. The Government expressly referred to Vlad v. Romania (dec.), no. 122/17, 15 November 2022, in their observations and invited the Court to declare the cases inadmissible.

The Court recalls that in Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, §§ 94-96, 20 July 2021, it held that an action in tort, based on Articles 1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code, as interpreted consistently by the national courts, had represented since 13 January 2021 an effective remedy for individuals who considered that they had been subjected to inadequate conditions of detention, and who were no longer being held in conditions that were allegedly contrary to the Convention. Subsequently, in Vlad, cited above, §§ 24-32, the Court considered it appropriate to apply an exception to the general principle that the effectiveness of a given remedy was to be assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged.

For all the above reasons and in the light of all the material in its possession, since the applicants ceased to be held in conditions of detention that were allegedly contrary to the Convention after the moment when the tort action had been considered as representing an effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Polgar, § 96 and Vlad, § 23, both cited above; see the appended table for further details), but did not inform the Court of having brought such an action before the domestic courts, their applications must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the periods laid down in the table appended below.

Since the Court has already upheld the Government’s objection on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it does not consider it necessary to examine further any additional objections as to the admissibility raised by the Government in respect of that part of the applications.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that these applications in the part described in the appended table must be dismissed on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

In application no. 31017/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application 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 application no. 31017/20 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 8 February 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)