CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s18C5FBF0 { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sC059CF80 { width:38.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5B72A8D0 { width:52.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s28A876 { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99FBE3EA { width:38.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s91DBFCDF { width:52.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 12725/17 and 80960/17 Vasile-Ionel SÎNGEORZAN against Romania and Marinel GAIŢĂ against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   November   2023 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 applicants, 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 Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applications are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that (i) the applicant in application no.   12725/17 complained about the conditions of detention he was held in from 18   September 2014 to 9 August 2016 in Timiș County Police Station and Timișoara and Deva (Bârcea Mare) Prisons, and (ii) the applicant in application no.   80960/17 complained about the conditions of detention he was held in from 5   January   2015 to 4   July   2017 in Mioveni Prison and Mioveni Prison Hospital. The Government submitted that the applicants had applied to the Court belatedly as (i) the applicant’s detention in application no.   12725/17 ended on 9   August   2016; and (ii) the applicant in application no.   80960/17 was held as of 16   February   2017 until his release on 4 July 2017 in a detention facility about which he had not complained, namely, Târgu   Jiu Prison. The Government supported this argument with official records. The applicants did not challenge the Government’s submissions. Against this background, the Court must determine whether the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit, as established by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention before being reduced to four months as of 1   February   2022 in accordance with Protocol No. 15. The Court reiterates that, in the absence of an effective remedy for complaints about inadequate conditions of detention, Article   35   §   1 of the Convention permits it to deal with a matter only if the application is lodged within six months of the date of the cessation of that situation (see Iacov Stanciu v.   Romania , no.   35972/05, §   136, 24 July 2012). The Court further reiterates that a period of detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” if the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions. The applicant’s release or transfer to a different type of detention regime, either within or outside the facility, would put an end to the “continuing situation” (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §   78, 10   January   2012). The Court notes, as regards application no.   12725/17, that the applicant’s release on 9   August 2016 put an end to the “continuing situation”. As regards application no.   80960/17, in the absence of a description whatsoever of the conditions of detention in Târgu Jiu Prison, the Court cannot conclude that the applicant was detained in identical or substantially similar conditions. Thus, it finds that the applicant’s transfer on 16   February   2017 to Târgu   Jiu Prison interrupted the continuous situation of the applicant’s detention (see Abdilla v.   Malta , no.   36199/15, §   28, 17   July 2018). Since application no.   12725/17 was lodged with the Court on 10   February   2017, and application no.   80960/17, was lodged on 24   November   2017, the applicants’ complaints about the conditions of their detention from 18   September 2014 to 9   August 2016, and from 5   January   2015 to 15   February 2017, respectively, were submitted out of the six ‑ month time ‑ limit (see Cloşcă and Others v.   Romania , nos.   54609/15 and 2   others, §   13, 8   October 2020). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and 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 14 December 2023.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth     12725/17 10/02/2017 Vasile-Ionel SÎNGEORZAN 1977     80960/17 24/11/2017 Marinel GAIȚĂ 1955