CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54674/20 Victor BORDIAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 December 2020 communicated on 6 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention in inhuman and degrading conditions since July 2014. He was frequently moved from one prison to another, spending most of his detention in prisons nos. 12 and 13. In February 2018 he was moved from prison no. 13 to prison no. 1 and then to prison no. 12 in May 2018. The applicant notes similar conditions in all these three prisons, notably overcrowding, inadequate quantity and quality of food. He started domestic proceedings using a newly adopted remedy (Article 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) asking for a shortening of his period of detention to compensate for the inhuman conditions. He initially lodged his complaint against prison no. 13 but later mentioned that the conditions in prison no. 12 (his place of detention at the time) were also inhuman. The courts rejected his claim as late since by the time of lodging his complaint he had no longer been detained in prison no. 13 for more than six months. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention owing to the applicant’s inhuman and degrading conditions of detention? In particular, does the applicant’s complaint concern a “continuous situation” within the meaning of that provision? ( Babchin v. the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation , no. 55698/14, § 33, 17 September 2019)