Communicated on 16 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2962/13 Ioan MUREÅžAN against Romania lodged on 3 December 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Ioan MureÅŸan , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Gherla Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mrs L. and Mr V. Ciorbea , lawyers practising in Bucharest.

The circumstances of the case

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

3 . On 10 January 2002 the criminal pursuit was opened against the applicant for embezzlement, forgery and abuse of his official position of minister of agriculture.

4 . On 28 May 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice convicted the applicant with final effect for the above-mentioned crimes and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. The full text of the judgment was available to the applicant on 1 November 2012.

5 . The applicant started serving his sentence in Gherla Prison on 28 May 2012. At his incarceration the applicant was suffering from type II diabetes treated with insulin, hypertension, biliary lithiasis and lumbar discopathy .

6 . On 23 November 2012 the applicant was seen by a specialist doctor at the “N. Paulescu ” Institute of diabetes and nutrition diseases and was recommended a special diet with four meals per day, medication and constant self-monitoring of his glycaemia level. On 7 December 2012 the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon in connection with his lumbar discopathy . He was recommended balneo and rheumatology therapy.

7 . In accordance with the forensic examination reports conducted in September and December 2012, the applicant ’ s diseases could be treated within the prison system.

8 . The applicant alleges that his state of health aggravated in prison because he was not able to follow the doctor ’ s recommendations and verify his glycaemia levels in adequate conditions and also due to an absolute lack of physical exercise.

9 . In addition, the applicant submits that he was transported to the courts, in order to appear before the judges in other proceedings pending against him, in inhuman conditions. More specifically, he alleges that the cars used for his transport were old, not equipped with light and unventilated. Also during transport he was usually not able to follow his insulin treatment and was not given adequate food having in mind his diabetes and the doctor ’ s recommendation of four meals per day. Hence, on several occasions he had suffered diabetic seizures. For example on 1 October 2012 when he was admitted to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital or on 5 November 2012, when an ambulance was called on the premises of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and he had to be resuscitated by the doctors.

COMPLAINTS

10 . The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of detention and transport which were not adapted to his state of health. In particular, he alleges an absolute lack of physical exercise, transportation in old cars which were not equipped with light and unventilated, a lack of adequate food during transport and the impossibility to adequately follow his insulin treatment both in the prison cell and during transport.

11 . Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him which lasted ten years, four months and nineteen days including the criminal investigation and the trial before the courts .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. H as the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account the following elements:

- the nature of the applicant ’ s illnesses and the specific medical treatment and diet recommended;

- the conditions of the applicant ’ s transport to and from the courts?

The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in Gherla Prison, with particular reference to the alleged lack of physical activities and the possibility to adequately follow his doctors ’ recommendations for his diabetes as well as the conditions of his transport to and from the courts.

2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?