CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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 Application no. 58137/15 Vasile RUSU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   April 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 application lodged on the date indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court must first determine whether the applicant 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 applicant is complaining about inadequate conditions of detention in which he had served the sentence until 24   January 2014. The complaints were lodged with the Court on 8   January   2016. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints 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, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances     58137/15 08/01/2016 Vasile Rusu 16/07/1991 Bacău Police Inspectorate 17/03/2012 to 17/04/2012 0 year(s) and 2 month(s)   Bacău Penitentiary 17/04/2012 to 10/10/2012 0 year(s) and 6 month(s)   Iaşi Penitentiary 10/10/2012 to 24/01/2014 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 15   day(s) 2.4 m²         1.3 m²         1.3 m²     overcrowding, lack of furniture         overcrowding, insalubrious cell, infestation of the cell with insects, poor quality of food, insufficient sanitary facilities       overcrowding, insufficient sanitary facilities, insufficient light, infestation of the cell with insects and rats