FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15360/16 Neculai COVACIU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 June 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Georges Ravarani, Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2016,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Neculai Covaciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bălan.

The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in Rahova Prison from 29 December 2014 to 19 October 2015 was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. More precisely, they submitted that the applicant had applied to the Court belatedly as the continuous situation complained of had ceased on 14 September 2015, when he was transferred to another prison cell where he had at his disposal personal space of 3.91 sq. m, whereas the applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 11 April 2016. The Government supported this argument with official records. The applicant did not contest these submissions.

At the outset, the Court observes that in the present application the applicant alleged, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, that the conditions of his detention in Rahova Prison from 29 December 2014 to 19 October 2015 had been inadequate owing to a lack of personal space. The Court further notes that, aside from his grievance concerning overcrowding, the applicant did not complain about other aspects of physical conditions of detention.

The Court recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, in instances where inmates appear to have at their disposal personal space measuring between 3 and 4 sq. m, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention may be found only if the space factor is coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention (see, for instance, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , § 106, 20 October 2016). In this regard, the Court observes that, from the official records submitted by the Government it appears that, from 29 December 2014 to 14 September 2015, the applicant disposed of 2.44 sq. m of personal space, which is below the relevant minimum standard established by the Court of 3 sq. m of floor surface per detainee in multi ‑ occupancy accommodation (see MurÅ¡ić, cited above, §§ 107 and 136). However, the Court also notes that, from 14 September 2015 to 19 October 2015, the applicant ’ s situation improved significantly since, as indicated by the official records submitted by the Government, he was transferred to a cell where he disposed from 3.91 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, as previously noted, the applicant did not complain about any other aspects of physical conditions of detention. Since, in this regard, the Government ’ s submissions were corroborated by documentary evidence, namely official records from the prison facility where the applicant was detained, the Court lends credence to them.

The Court reiterates that, in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint for inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months from the cessation of the continuing situation complained of (see Iacov Stanciu v. Romania , no. 35972/05 , § 136, 24 July 2012). Having regard to the abovementioned considerations, the Court considers that the application should have been introduced within six months from the date when the applicant ’ s conditions of detention improved, namely 14 September 2015. The Court notes, however, that the applicant lodged his application on 11 April 2016, which is more than six months after the cessation of the continuous situation complained of.

In view of the above, the Court 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 11 July 2019 .

Liv Tigerstedt Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President