Communicated on 4 March 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 65158/09 Adrian DRÄ‚GAN against Romania lodged on 25 November 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Adrian Drăgan , is a stateless person , who was born in 1956 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison .

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

A . The conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

3. The applicant was detained and released numerous times in the last seven years. In 2009 the applicant was detained in Jilava Prison. During the first half of 2012 he was held in Gala ţ i Prison, then in Slobozia Prison from where he was released on 1 January 2013. Between 13 January and 20 February 2013 the applicant was on pre-trial detention in the facilities of the Bucharest Police. On 20 February 2013 he started serving a new sentence in Rahova Prison, then he was transferred to Jilava Prison and now he is detained in Giurgiu Prison.

4. In his application forms and letters sent to the Court since 2009, the applicant complained about the overcrowding he had to endure in Gala ţ i Prison, where thirteen to fifteen detainees were held in a cell of 20 – 24 sq. m, as well as in Rahova , Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons.

5. With respect to the detention facilities of the Bucharest Police the applicant complained of the most severe overcrowding. He alleged that he was sharing a 9 sq. m cell with five detainees, the cell had no window, no daylight and no ventilation.

6. The applicant also alleged that the quality of food and drinking water was very poor in all prisons he was detained, that he was not always served his Muslim diet and that most of the time he was starving. The hot water was provided for short periods of time in which there was not enough time for brushing his teeth. In Jilava Prison there was not enough drinking water provided.

7. The applicant further alleged that, although he did not have any financial resources and no family to help him, the prison authorities did not provide him with the necessary clothes, toilet paper, soap or products to brush his teeth .

8. The applicant complained about all these conditions on numerous occasions to the prison authorities and the judge delegate for the execution of sentences but his complaints were never solved or they were rejected as being ill-founded. For example, on 30 September 2009, the Bucharest District Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the lack of adequate provision of drinking water in Jilava Prison with the reasoning that this situation was due to budgetary constraints. Another complaint filed with the delegate judge while the applicant was held in Rahova Prison bears on its back the mention “Transferred”. A complaint about overcrowding addressed to the Rahova Prison director on 2 April 2013 bears the mention that the repartition of detainees in sections and cells was the attribute of the prison ’ s administration and the prison did not dispose of individual cells.

B . The applicant ’ s medical treatment in detention

9 . On 9 July 2009, following a dental examination conducted in Rahova Prison, the applicant was diagnosed with parodontosis I-II degree and a frontal, lateral and terminal edentation . The doctor recommended specific parodontosis treatment, the putting in place of a mobile prosthesis and a liquid or semi-solid diet until the installation of the prosthesis.

10. The applicant complained on numerous occasions before the prison authorities and the delegate judge for the execution of sentences about the lack of adequate medical treatment and diet for his dental condition. On 3 November 2009 the judge delegate for the execution of sentences in Rahova Prison rejected the applicant ’ s complaint with the reasoning that there was no recommendation for treatment or special diet in the applicant ’ s case. His complaint against this decision was rejected as ill-founded by the Bucharest District Court on 10 February 2010. The court held that the applicant was administered the correct diet. No mention was made to the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the failure to receive the recommended medical treatment.

11. Between 15 and 19 October 2012 the applicant was committed in the Dej Prison Hospital where he was diagnosed with left side submaxilitis and generalised gingivostomatitis accompanied by a congestion of the gingiva.

12. On 11 April 2013 another complaint by the applicant concerning the failure to provide him with the recommended treatment and diet was forwarded by the delegate judge to the director of Rahova Prison for verification.

13. In April 2013 the applicant complained again that, due to his medical condition, he could not eat the food he was served in prison. He alleged that the meat was not well boiled and very often he received raw bacon uncut. On 14 May 2013 the Bucharest District Court finally rejected this complaint as ill-founded holding that the food in prisons was prepared and administered in accordance with the law and within the limits of the budget.

14. In August 2013 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic parodontosis and was prescribed anti-inflammatory treatment.

15. According to the applicant, due to the lack of adequate treatment, he lost 70 % of his teeth. He further alleged that he does not have any financial resources in order to pay for the treatment himself or to buy more appropriate food. Hence, he is constantly starving because he is not served food adapted to his medical condition.

C . The applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment by a prison guard

16. According to the applicant, on 14 February 2013, while he was being transported to an infirmary outside the prison because he was not feeling well, he was ill-treated by the prison guard escort ing him. He alleged that the guard attached his handcuffs very tight ly at the back so that he got hurt during transport in the van ; the guard also smoked all the way in the van and made jokes at the applicant ’ s expense. When the applicant complained upon arrival at their destination, the guard made his handcuffs even tighter and banged his head against the wall of the infirmary building several times .

17. Immediately after the incident, the guard in question drafted a complaint against the applicant reques ting his disciplinary sanction.

18. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in respect of ill-treatment against the prison guard.

19. On 4 March 2013 the applicant was sanctioned by the Rahova Prison Disciplinary Commission for displaying a disrespectful attitude towards the prison guard and banging his own head against the wall . The applicant complain ed against th at decision but the complaint was rejected as ill-founded by the relevant judge on 6 March 2013. However, the judge held that it could not be proved that the applicant had banged his own head against the wall, and therefore he was to be sanctioned only for his disrespectful attitude towards the prison guard. In the course of this procedure the applicant also complained that he had not been taken before a forensic doctor in order to have his injuries and their nature confirmed . The judge replied that this aspect could not be examined in disciplinary proceedings but would have to be analysed in the course of the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant against the prison guard.

COMPLAINTS

20. The ap plicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of detention and the lack of adequate medical care in all prisons he was held. In particular, he complains of severe overcrowding, poor quality of food and water, lack of hot running water and no provision of clothing or personal hygiene products. He further complains of lack of medical treatment and adequate food for his parodontosis which lead to the loss of 70 % of his teeth and his constant starving. He also allegess that his numerous complaints in this respect remained unsolved.

21. The applicant also complains in substance under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by a prison guard on 14 February 2013 and that to steps have been taken to investigate his criminal complaint.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the conditions of detention in Rahova , Jilava and Galaţi Prisons?

2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of the lack of adequate medical treatment for his parodontosis , taking into account that the need for a dental prosthesis ha s been established in his case (see V.D. v. Romania , no. 7078/02 , §§ 82-99, 16 February 2010)?

The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the above prisons in particular as regards overcrowding, sanitary facilities, the quality of food and the provision of clothing or personal hygiene products a s well as copies of the applicant ’ s medical records with respect to his complaints .

3. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of his alleged ill-treatment by a prison guard on 14 February 201 3 ?

4. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see § 82 of Şercău v. Romania , no. 41775/06, 5 June 2012), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file concerning the criminal investigation with respect to the applicant ’ s complaint against the prison guard .