Communicated on 6 October 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 7738/15 Vladimir GRIBINCEA against Romania lodged on 2 February 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Gribincea , is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Ia ÅŸ i Prison.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant has suffered since 1996 from paranoid schizophrenia.

He was arrested in 2004 after having confessed to the murder of his former wife. The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation during the criminal proceedings. At that time he was diagnosed with a “contextual depressive state” ( stare depresiv ă situa ţio nal ă ). On 18 April 2005 the Ia ş i County Court found that when committing the crime he had remained in possession of his ability to make sound judgments. It therefore convicted him of having premeditatedly killed his former wife while under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison.

The applicant did not appeal. Consequently, the above decision adopted by the County Court became final.

1. Requests for a stay of execution on medical grounds

In 2011 the applicant requested a stay of execution of his sentence on the ground of serious illness. A forensic medical examination established that his medical condition, including the schizophrenia, could be treated in prison hospitals. On 3 January 2012, on the basis of these recommendations, the Ia ÅŸ i County Court dismissed his request.

In 2013 he again sought a stay of execution of his prison sentence. He asked to be admitted to a psychiatric institution. He explained that he did not want to be sent under guard from prison to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, because such situation would entail his being held in complete seclusion (as he would not be able to leave his hospital room).

At the court ’ s request, several medical opinions were issued during the proceedings by the “Mina Minovici ” National Institute for Forensic Medicine. The report was made available to the court on 17 December 2013. The experts summarised the applicant ’ s condition as follows:

“[The applicant ’ s] psychiatric pathology, which belongs in the category of the most severe psychiatric illnesses, is characterised by acute phases followed by remission phases (the latter being no more than remissions of differing intensity, but not a full recovery within the meaning of this term) of unpredictable length and frequency, which require complex individualised treatment – not merely the prescribing of medicine – in order to attain ... virtually continuous remission ... , to which the prison environment is not suitable.”

For this reason, the experts considered that the applicant should not be kept in prison but rather transferred to an adequate medical facility. They referred to Article 114 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) which provides for admission to a medical facility on the order of a prosecutor or court. They also expressed reservations as to the diagnosis established during the criminal trial against the applicant, who, in their view, should have been subject to another expert examination in order to allow for a better assessment of the applicant ’ s degree of criminal responsibility at the date of the crime.

The National Prison Administration (“the NPA”) informed the court that the prison system could only provide a guard to those who had been ordered by a court to undergo medical treatment under Article 113 of the CC. In the NPA ’ s view, admission to a “psychiatric hospital”, as provided for by Article 114 of the CC, means psychiatric hospitals within the Ministry of Health system, but it explained that the NPA could not offer a permanent guard for such committal:

“The penitentiary system has six prison hospitals, three of them having psychiatric facilities. These units receive prisoners for diagnosis, treatment or specialised re-evaluation, but are not meant as detention facilities in which prisoners could serve ... their prison sentence. This situation follows from the contracts signed with the Health Insurance Agency ( Casa de Asigur ă ri de S ă n ă tate ), whereby the length of a stay in these facilities is limited. In the light of the conclusions of the psychiatric evaluation – which required that [the applicant] ... be admitted to a specialised hospital belonging to the Ministry of Health and not to the NPA, as the stay might be for an indefinite period of time – [the NPA] cannot ensure [the applicant ’ s] treatment under permanent escort in a facility belonging to the Ministry of Health.”

The NPA further explained that it could offer guard for transport to civilian hospitals for treatment and stays for determined periods of time.

On 31 January 2014 the court dismissed the applicant ’ s request. It reiterated that the execution of the sentence could be interrupted if two conditions were met: ( i ) the prisoner suffered from a serious illness that was incompatible with detention conditions and (ii) his release did not constitute a threat to public order. Examining the applicant ’ s situation, the court considered that he suffered from a serious illness, but that he could be treated in prison. On this point, the court emphasised that the medical experts had not recommended a stay of execution, but rather his admission to a specialised facility, which the court acknowledged meant a civilian hospital. The NPA had both the obligation and the means to ensure a permanent guard. The court explained that, in so far as the applicant had already been convicted and sentenced to a prison term, he could no longer benefit from the provisions of Article 114 of the CC. Considering the second requirement for a stay of execution, the court observed that the applicant could not be released from prison, because he constituted a threat to the public order, as outlined in the expert report.

The court noted that the administration authorities of the prison in which the applicant was held had an obligation to ensure that he received adequate medical care, but considered that it could not impose such measures on those prison authorities.

The applicant also complained that his true state of health had not been taken into account in the criminal proceedings against him. The court considered that it did not have jurisdiction to examine this complaint and advised the applicant to use the legal remedies at his disposal.

The applicant appealed against the judgment of 31 January 2014. In a final decision adopted on 1 April 2014, the Ia ÅŸ i Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and thus upheld the above judgment.

2. Request for a revision of the 2005 decision

According to the applicant, he only realised after the start of his detention that his psychiatric illness had not been taken into account during the criminal trial against him. Therefore, on 5 June 2014 he sought a revision of the 2005 decision. His request was dismissed on 7 August 2014 by the Iaşi County Court on the ground that the applicant ’ s dissatisfaction concerning the manner in which forensic evidence (namely the psychiatric report) had been interpreted by the courts did not constitute a valid ground for reopening the proceedings. The County Court ’ s decision was upheld by a final decision of 16 September 2014 of the Iaşi Court of Appeal.

On 10 November 2014 the Court of Appeal returned to the applicant the petition lodged by him for an appeal on points of law, on the ground that it had not been lodged through the offices of a lawyer authorised to appear before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

3. Conditions of detention

The applicant notes that he was placed in a maximum security prison. His co-detainees tried to co-opt him in their activities, and he felt terrorised by the atmosphere. His inability to communicate with others caused by his illness elicited aggressive reactions from co-detainees. He had to deal with stress, noise, cigarette smoke, and conflict, which placed significant psychological and physical strain on him. He did not receive adequate medical treatment for his mental illness and the treatment he did receive caused damage to his liver.

B. Relevant law

Excerpts from Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences and of the international standards concerning the detention of mentally-ill prisoners are cited in Gheorghe Predescu v. Romania , no. 19696/10 , §§ 29-33, 25 February 2014.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he should have been placed in a mental institution, rather than being convicted and sentenced to a prison term. He further complains that such detention is d etrimental to his mental state.

Under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, he complains that he did not have the possibility of obtaining legal representation for his request for revision.

Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he received a much harsher sentence than others who committed similar crimes and who suffered from the same mental illness.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Are the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular:

(a) is the applicant ’ s health compatible with detention conditions?

(b) was the applicant ’ s mental illness properly taken into account in determining the manner of the execution of his sentence?

(c) is there any legal means for transferring a person with a mental illness such as the applicant ’ s from prison to an adequate psychiatric facility?

2. Has the applicant benefited from adequate medical care in detention?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint concerning the compatibility of his state of health with the detention conditions, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to send a copy of the applicant ’ s prison medical record.