CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 janvier 2019

.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 } .s222DBDF3 { width:170.44pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .sB136BB97 { width:166.44pt; 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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE232948B { width:14.16%; 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 } .s3611271C { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACC72EF4 { width:22.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFA29F848 { width:14.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11B4929F { width:34.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s124F9AE2 { width:14.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3FE1E5CE { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBCD15863 { width:22.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2636E1DF { width:14.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s72F3C6A9 { width:34.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16984/16 Gheorghe CRÎNGANU against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   January 2019 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 14 April 2016, Having regard to the observations 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’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the inadequate conditions of detention that the applicant complained of. In particular, the Court notes that the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicant’s complaint was lodged out of time. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint concerns his detention in Galați County Police and in Galați Prison, which ceased on 26 June 2013, when the applicant was transferred to another prison in respect of which he did not raise any complaint. Therefore, in light of the fact that the current application was lodged on 14 April 2016, the Court allows the Government’s objection and finds that the application was lodged outside 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 7 February 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances 16984/16 14/04/2016 Gheorghe Crînganu 29/03/1961 Galați County Police and Galați Prison 09/03/2011 to 26/06/2013 2 years and 3   months and 18 days 1.2 - 1.3 m² Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower