Communicated on 11 July 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11220/14 Gabi Ainald MIHÄ‚ILESCU against Romania lodged on 22 January 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gabi Ainald Mihăilescu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Ia ș i Prison.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The applicant ’ s conditions of detention

According to the applicant, the cell in which he is detained at present in Iași Prison is overcrowded. He shares a 29 sq. m cell with seventeen other detainees. Moreover, he claims that he shares his cell with smokers despite the fact that he is a non-smoker.

The applicant also complains about the bad quality of food.

2. The applicant ’ s medical condition

O n 29 October 2013 a medical commission , organised under Law no. 448/2006 concerning the protection and the promotion of disabled persons , issued a certifica te attesting that the applicant had been classified as a person with a permanent severe physical disability. The medical panel which examined the applicant at that time grant ed him the right to benefit from a personal care assistant.

The applicant contends that in spite of this medical certificate h e was not assigned a personal care assistant and was permanently subjected to humiliating and degrading remarks from his cellmates, the same people to whom he had to appeal for assistance. He submits that because he had no personal assistant he could not benefit from daily walks and was dependent on the other inmates to be moved around the prison .

The applicant claims that n o special arrangements were made for him in the light of his disability.

3. The applicant ’ s domestic complaints

The applicant lodged several different com plaints on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (“Law no. 275/2006”) with the post-sentencing judge .

In 2013 the applicant lodged three complaints concerning the infringement of his right to have a personal care assistant by Rahova Prison ’ s authorities. He claimed that although he was suffering from a severe visual impairment, he had not been assigned a person to assist him .

The complaints were joined and examined together by the post ‑ sentencing judge on 14 June 2013. The judge noted that according to the opinion of the prison ’ s doctor the applicant was not entitled to a personal assistant. It further noted that on 9 May 2013 the prison ’ s authorities had appointed a commission of multidisciplinary specialists which had examined the applicant. The commission found that due to his visual impairment the applicant encountered difficulties in eating and maintaining his hygiene and in alerting the prison ’ s staff or other co ‑ detainees in case of need . It recommended, therefore, a set of steps to be taken, among which the close monitoring of the applicant. Subsequently, a detainee, C.F., sharing the cell with the applicant was assigned to support him in his daily activities. The post-sentencing judges dismissed the applicant ’ s complaints on the grounds that the steps taken by the prison ’ s authorities were sufficient.

The applicant contends that the assignment of his co-detainee, C.F. was useless because the latter refused to provide him with any help. As evidence, the applicant produced a handwritten statement by his inmate C.F., dated 20 June 2013, in which the latter stated that he did not want to help the applicant because the prison ’ s authorities did not consider his activity as personal care assistant as work that should be remunerated.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention in Iași Prison. He complains mainly of overcrowding, poor quality of food and non-segregati on of smokers from non-smokers.

He also claims that despite the fact that his medical condition required direct and constant assistance from another person in his daily activities, he did not benefit from a personal care assistant in Rahova and Iași Prisons.

Q UESTIOn TO THE PARTIES

Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s material conditions of detention in Iași Prison and the lack of a personal care assistant for the applicant in spite of his severe disability ?