CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s3C773144 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s6241B8BC { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#4b4b4b } .sA3E74418 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s3213ED87 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s5423D5C9 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB77EEC9D { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9FFC3198 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41636/18 Vasile CUCICEA against Portugal (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   November 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina , Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16   August 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; Having regard to the fact that the Romanian Government did not express the wish to intervene in the present case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court); Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms I.M. Peter, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, these complaints are inadmissible. Conditions of detention at the Vale de Judeus Prison since 27   April 2012 The Court notes that the applicant is detained at the Vale de Judeus Prison since 27 April 2012. Having regard to all the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicant suffered in this prison from severe overcrowding in detention of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, 20   October 2016). Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal , no.   5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020). Conditions of detention before 27 April 2012 In light of the previous conclusion, the Court finds that the applicant’s transfer to the Vale de Judeus Prison on 27 April 2012 interrupted the «continuing situation» of the applicant’s conditions of detention. Therefore, the applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of detention before 27   April 2012 are belated (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 77-78, 10 January 2012; and Eskerkhanov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 31, 25   July 2017) and must be rejected in accordance with 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 16 December 2021.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   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   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances 41636/18 16/08/2018 Vasile CUCICEA 1975 Peter Irina Maria Bucharest Elvas Prison 05/04/2012 to 28/04/2012 24 days       Vale de Judeus Prison 28/04/2012 pending More than 9 years and 5 months and 18 days 3 inmates 2.3 m²         6 inmates 4.04 - 5.4 m²   Mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality food, overcrowding         Lack or inadequate hygiene installations, access to phone calls limited to 5   minutes per day