CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sED80420C { width:26.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s41841787 { width:23.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE1EBF4E7 { width:50.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C636E4A { width:26.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A2C98F0 { width:23.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s86A9AD6A { width:50.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9915/21 Sándor BODI against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   November 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28   July 2021, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available effective remedies for the complaint about the inadequate conditions of his detention, as the action in tort had become an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicant, allowing him 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, and invited the Court to declare the case 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 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. Although invited, the applicant did not inform the Court of having brought an action in tort before the Romanian courts. Therefore, for all the above reasons and in the light of all the material in its possession, since the applicant 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), the Court considers that his application must be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 December 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration 9915/21 28/07/2021 Sándor BODI 1983   Aiud and Târgu Mureş Prisons; Jilava Prison Hospital 19/03/2019 to 28/12/2021 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)