CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 2018

.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 } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29432/16 Lucian DINCĂ against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   October 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2016, Having regard to the observation submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms M. Popa, residing in Galaţi. 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 The Government submitted that the applicant had applied to the Court belatedly as his detention in Galați Prison ended on 13 May 2015. The Government supported this argument with official records. The applicant did not object. The Court notes that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 9 June 2016, which is more than six months after the end of his detention in the facilities he complained of (see appended table for further details). The Court reiterates that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicant’s detention (see Iacov Stanciu v. Romania , no. 35972/05, §136, 24 July 2012). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention was submitted out of the six-month time-limit 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 8 November 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances     29432/16 09/06/2016 Lucian Dincă 03/11/1981 Mihaela Popa Galați Galați Police Arrest and Galați Prison 19/12/2012 to 27/03/2013 3 months and 9 days   Galați Prison 13/06/2014 to 13/05/2015 11 months and 1 day 1.6-2.1 m²             1.6-2.1 m²       overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking