Communicated on 20 September 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 37772/17 Ioan POTOROC against Romania lodged on 17 May 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns Mr. Potoroc ’ s continued detention while suffering from various medical disorders, including brain damage subsequent to several strokes, hemiparesis, prostate cancer, as well as impaired hearing and severe psychoorganic syndrome (a progressive disease comparable to presenile dementia). The applicant, who is 64 years of age, is obliged to use a wheelchair and requires permanent assistance, as well as continuous medical care.

Following his imprisonment, the applicant filed several requests for release on health grounds. One of these requests was allowed after judges noted his “deplorable state”, with the applicant being released for a few months before being reincarcerated . The last steps taken by the applicant in this sense were another request for release on health grounds, rejected by final decision of the Pitești Court of Appeal on 27 September 2016 and, subsequently, a request to be committed to a prison hospital, which was allowed by the Argeș County Court on 17 October 2016.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES

In light of:

- the principles emanating from the Court ’ s pertinent case-law (see, among others, Mouisel v. France, no. 67266/01, 14 November 2002; Scoppola v. Italy , no. 50550/06, 10 June 2008; Gülay Çetin v. Turkey , no . 44084/10, 5 March 2013; Bamouhammad v. Belgium , no. 47687/13, 17 November 2015); and

- the relevant materials of the Council of Europe (see, in particular, Third General Report on the CPT ’ s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1992 (Section III – Health care services in prisons) and Recommendations nos. R (98) 7, Rec(2000)22 of the Committee of Ministers);

The Government is invited to answer the following question:

In view of the applicant ’ s advanced age, significant health problems, and the alleged inadequacies of the medical treatment received in prison, does the applicant ’ s continued detention amount to an exceptional hardship? If so, does his continued imprisonment violate the provisions laid down in Article 3 of the Convention?