CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG28
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0524DEC000972815
- Date
- 24 mai 2018
- Publication
- 24 mai 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s2737C6CF { width:157.76pt; display:inline-block } .sE6546C2D { width:159.78pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9728/15 Marian STANCIUC against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   May 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 May 2015, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Marian Stanciuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Văleni. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in Iași Penitentiary from 22   October   2012 to 4 November 2014 was communicated to the Government. THE LAW The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of detention in Iași Penitentiary. The Government indicated that the applicant was detained in Iași Penitentiary from 23 October 2012 to 5 November 2014. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s above allegations. Taking into account all the material before it, the Court must first determine whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit established by Article 35 §1 of the Convention. The Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply of its own motion, even if the Government have not raised that objection ( Sabri Güneş v. Turkey , [GC], no. 27396/06, § 29, 29 June 2012). The Court notes that the applicant was detained in Iași Penitentiary from 23 October 2012 until 5 November 2014. The time-limit laid down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention therefore started to run on the following day, 6 November 2014, and expired at midnight on 5 May 2015 ( Sabri Güneş v. Turkey , cited above, § 60). It is to be noted that the complaint was lodged with the Court on 6 May 2015, that is, after the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limit. Accordingly, this complaint has 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, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 28
- Date
- 24 mai 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0524DEC000972815
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral