CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s89DC0DED { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC6271ACD { width:186.41pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 31335/16 and 31336/16 George Cătălin CIOBOTARU against Romania and Anatolie CARABEȚ against Romania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Karen Reid, 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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Ms Ionela Mărgărit, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 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 A.     The joinder of the cases Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court must first determine whether the applicants complied with Article   35 of the Convention, and specifically with the six-month time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, the Court notes that the applicants are complaining about the inadequate conditions of detention in the places in which they have served the sentence until 23 April 2015 and 17 November 2015, respectively. The complaints were lodged with the Court on 28 May 2016. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   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 4 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Registrar   President APPENDIX Applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Facility Period concerned by the application       31335/16 28/05/2016 George Cătălin Ciobotaru 05/05/1992 Mărgărit Ionela Bucharest Penitentiaries of Tichilești and Galați 02/05/2011 to 23/04/2015       31336/16 28/05/2016   Anatolie Carabeț 15/11/1978 Mărgărit Ionela Bucharest Penitentiaries of Galați and Brăila 28/02/2014 to 17/11/2015