THIRD SECTION

Application no. 51391/12 Sonia GRÃœNFELD against Romania lodged on 19 July 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Sonia Grunfeld , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970 and currently serves a prison sentence in Gherla Prison.

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

A. Material conditions of detention

The applicant has been held in three different cells, of which the first two had 26.15 sq. m and 15 beds. The last cell where she is still held has 8.22 sq. m and four beds. Each of these cells is provided with a small table, cabinet and shelves and with sanitary facilities consisting of a toilet, sink and shower annexed to each cell. The windows are covered with thick iron nets. The cells are dirty and infested with bugs, the mattresses are old and dirty. The detainees do not have access to drinking water or warm water and the sanitary facilities are unhygienic.

The detainees are allowed to store food in their room, but there are no proper storing facilities in the cells; they keep the food on the floors, under their beds.

There are no sport facilities in the prison and no possibility for the detainees to maintain their physical shape.

Although she was assigned to an open prison regime, the applicant is held in semi-open regime cells, as there were no non-smoking places available in an open regime cell. As a consequence she is subjected to more restrictions than she should be. In particular, she explains that in the semi ‑ open regime the cells doors close at 6 pm, the lightning on the corridor remains constantly switched on, and she cannot use the telephone without a warden ’ s presence; in the open regime, the doors remain constantly unlocked and the light is switched off for the night.

Her numerous complaints have either been dismissed as unfounded or have not yet received an answer from the National Prison Administration.

The applicant further claims that although she is entitled to 25 days of permission in a year, the Prison director refuses to allow her to exercise her right. Her complaint to the Prison administration was dismissed, on the ground that the permission to leave the prison was not an entitlement but a reward and therefore was not granted at the prisoner ’ s request.

The applicant raised all these matters with the judge responsible for examining actions lodged under Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences ( judecatorul delegat - “the delegate judge”; and “Law no. 275/2006”) who, in a decision of 6 January 2013 dismissed her complaints. The delegate judge considered that the legal requirement of allowing each prisoner a 4 sq. m living space did not apply to the semi-open and open detention regimes. She further found that the furniture in the cell corresponded to the legal requirements for decency and also that the applicant was granted all the rights corresponding to the open prison regime.

B. Prison work conditions

On 10 August 2012, based on her detention regime, the applicant was recommended by the examination commission for working outside the Prison. However, the prison officer responsible with the organization of work denied her the request to work outside, implying that she had psychiatric problems. She complained to the delegate judge who explained that she did not qualify for work outside the prison because she had been heard by court in a pending case. According to the applicant, the only time she had been heard by a judge outside her own case was on 24 August 2012 when she gave witness testimony in a road accident case.

From 26 November 2012 the applicant was put to work in the laundry run by the Prison. According to the applicant the work conditions are very poor, the room where she works is situated in the prison ’ s basement, is cold, mouldy, and infested with bugs and mice, and the air is humid.

C. Transport

On 12 March 2012 the applicant was transported from Gherla Prison to Bucharest- Jilava Prison for medical tests. During the transport which lasted for fourteen hours, the applicant had to share the back of a van with another detainee who was suffering from consumption.

The applicant lodged a complaint about the situation, but the delegate judge dismissed it as inadmissible, on the ground that the manner in which the applicant was transported did not constitute a “measure” taken by the Prison administration and therefore did not fall within the ambit of Law no. 275/2006.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of her detention, about the prison work conditions and the conditions in which she was transported to Jilava Prison.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention , concerning the complaint about the work conditions in prison and the conditions of transport from Gherla to Jilava Prison ?

2. Were the material conditions of detention during the applicants ’ stay in prison, as well as the work conditions, and the manner in which she was transported to Jilava Prison in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?