CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s838106AB { width:144.53pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13487/16 Costică RUSU against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   October 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   April 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the information submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr. Costică Rusu, was born in 1976. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in Galați County Police station as well as in Galați and Brăila Prisons, starting with 28 March 2005, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The applicant’s request to strike out part of the application By letter received on 26 March 2018, the applicant informed the Court that he had benefitted from the domestic compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 169/2017 and therefore asked the Court to strike out the part of his application covering the period of his detention after 24 July 2012 – the date from which the compensatory remedy automatically applied and the applicant benefitted from it. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of his application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and it should therefore be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. Remaining complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) For the remaining parts of the application, relating to the conditions of the application’s detention prior to 24 July 2012, the Court notes the following. As regards the part of the applicant’s detention from September 2005 until 24 July 2012, this same period of detention was already examined by the Court in application no. 38811/15. In that case, the Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s complaint regarding inadequate conditions of detention for the said period. Consequently, the Court finds that this part of the present application is essentially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention. Turning to the period between 25 March and September 2005, the Court notes that the present application was lodged with the Court on 1 April 2016. It follows that the applicant’s complaints concerning his detention before September 2005 is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six ‑ month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the part of the application concerning the applicant’s detention after 24 July 2012 out of the list of cases further to the withdrawal by the applicant; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar   President