CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 January 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 49254/22 and 10120/23 Giulio PLATON against Romania and Gheorghe-Vasile VĂSCĂUŢANU against Romania lodged on 12 October 2022 and 20 February 2023 respectively communicated on 20 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, currently in detention, complain, under Article 3 of the Convention, about overcrowding and other issues related to the material conditions of their detention, including poor hygiene, mould-infested or unclean cells, and inadequate ventilation and lighting. The first applicant, whose detention commenced on 14 November 2020, was sentenced to 14 years and four months’ imprisonment. He complains about the conditions of detention at the Giurgiu, Mioveni, Timișoara, Jilava Prisons, and Dej Prison Hospital. The second applicant, whose detention commenced on 26 February 2019, was sentenced to life imprisonment. He complains about the conditions of detention at the Vrancea County Police Station, Focșani and Galați Prisons. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania , nos. 61467/12 and 3   others, 25   April 2017)?   2.     Did the applicants have an effective preventive remedy, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, through which they could raise before the domestic courts their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention relating to improper conditions of detention? Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was a complaint before the post-sentencing judge under Law   no.   254/2013 on sentencing, execution of sentences, and detention (“Law   no.   254/2013”) an effective remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 3?   In the affirmative, the Government are invited to provide examples of domestic case-law concerning measures ordered by the post-sentencing judge under Law   no.   254/2013 to guarantee detainees standards of accommodation compliant with Article 3 of the Convention, together with proof of implementation of those measures.