THIRD SECTION

Applications nos . 16980/12 and 28390/12 Remus TUDOR against Romania lodged on 19 December 2011 and 8 August 2012 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant in both case s , Mr Remus Tudor, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1966 . He is currently serving his sentence in Giurgiu Prison.

The first application, no. 16980/12 ( Tudor (XI) v. Romania ), was lodged on 19 December 20 11. The second application, no. 28390/12 ( Tudor (XII) v. Romania ), was lodged on 8 August 2012.

The circumstances of the case s

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

In 1990 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment . He has been held in a number of different detention centres. He has been detained in Jilava Prison from 8 April 2009 until 10 November 2011, when he was transferred to Giurgiu Prison.

1. The applicant ’ s conditions of detention in Jilava and Giurgiu P risons

The applicant complains about overcrowding and lack of proper conditions of hygiene in both prisons.

(a) Jilava Prison

The applicant was deta ined in cell no. 207 between 17 September 2010 and 4 September 2011.

According to the applicant, cell no. 207 had a surface area of 27 square metres (6 metres in length and 4 .5 metres wide). He shared this cell with thirteen other prisoners. The cell was equipped with two squat toilets (only one functional), separated from the rest of the room by a wall.

The room did not have any furniture in which to keep personal objects and food; therefore the prisoners were forced to keep them under their beds where there were hundreds of insects.

On 5 September 2011 the applicant was moved in cell no. 305, in which he was detained until 10 November 2011.

According to the applicant, cell no. 305 had a surface of 26.65 square meters and was occupied by eleven detainees. The room did not have enough pieces of furniture for eleven detainees; therefore, the prisoners were forced to keep their person al objects and food under their beds.

The applicant also claims that the sanitary annex to their cell was not equipped with any shower, as requested by the applicable norms.

(b) Giurgiu Prison

The applicant ’ s detention in Giurgiu Prison started on 10 November 2011. At present the applicant is serving his sentence in the same prison.

He mainly complains of overcrowding. He claims that there are no more than 1.5 square meters of personal space per detainees in the cell occupied by him.

(a ) The first complaint concerning the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison

The applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences in Jilava Prison. Relying on Law no. 275/2006 he complained about the material conditions of his detention, namely about the lack of furniture in which to keep personal objects and food and the absence of a shower in the sanitary annex to the cell. He also contended that the temperature in his cell was lower than 19 degrees Celsius. By an interlocutory judgment of 16 November 2011, the judge dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unfounded.

The applicant challenged th e interlocutory judgment. On 14 April 2011 the Bucharest Fourth District Court partly allowed the complaint. The court allowed the complaints concerning the lack of furniture and of a shower and dismissed the complaint concerning the low temperature in the cell as unfounded.

(b ) The second complaint concerning the co nditions of detention in Jilava Prison

The applicant lodged another complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences in Jilava Prison claiming that his personal space in cell no. 305 was less than 4 square metres. The judge dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unfounded on 30 December 2011.

The applicant challenged th e interlocutory judgment. On 14 March 2012 the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed the complaint. Noting that the surface of the cell was 26.65 square meters and that the cell was occupied by eleven detainees, the court held th at the applicant did not have 4 square meters of personal space as requested by law.

(c ) The applicant ’ s complaint concerning the lack of medical treatment

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences in Jilava Prison claiming the infrin gement of Article 50 of Law no. 275/2006. He claimed that he did not receive any medical treatment between 5 and 19 August 2011. He maintained that although he was e xamined by a doctor on 5 August 2011 and prescribed medication, he received medical treatment only after two weeks.

By an interlocutory judgment of 12 September 2011, the judge dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint holding that a delay of a few days in receiving medication did not have a negative impact on his medical condition.

The applicant appealed arguing that the delay in obtaining medication caused him suffering and aggravated his medical condition.

On 25 November 2011 the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed the complaint holding that the lack of prompt medication had negative impact on the medical condition of the applicant.

(d) The applicant ’ s complaint concerning the search of his cell

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences in Jilava Prison. He claimed that during a sea rch performed in his cell on 13 July 2011, the prison guards have stolen several personal objects, among which, a personal diary, three packs of cigarettes and legal documents from his luggage.

The judge dismissed his complaint on 25 July 2011 holding that the search was carried out in accordance with applicable legal provisions and in the presence of a detainee. The judge considered that the applicant lodged the complaint in order to discredit the prison guards who found in his cell objects which he was not allowed to possess in prison (a mobile phone, a charger for his phone, two syringes etc).

The applicant challenged th e interlocutory judgment. On 13 October 2011 the Bucharest Four th District Court dismissed his complaint holding that only the prosecutor could establish whether an offence had been committed. He was therefore invited to submit his complaint with the competent prosecutor ’ s office under another legal basis.

B. Relevant domestic law

Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences provides that sentences should be served in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity . One or more judges are delegated by the local appeal court to supervise the observance of the rights guaranteed by the law and they examine the complaints of detainees. It is possible to lodge an appeal with a court against these decisions.

Excerpts from the relevant international and domestic reports concerning the situation in Romanian prisons are given in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania , ( no. 35972/05 , § § 125-129, 4 July 2012 ).

COMPLAINTS

Complai nt raised under application no. 16980/12

1. T he applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison , especially with regard to overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions.

Complaints raised under application no. 28390/12

1. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in Giurgiu Prison starting from 10 November 2011, especially with regard to overcrowding.

2. Under the same article the applicant complains of lack of medical treatment while in Jilava Prison.

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant claims that during a search of cell no. 207, c arried out in his absence on 13 July 2011, the prison guards had stolen his personal diary and legal documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons bre ach the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations of overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions ?

The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention, in particular concerning the size of the respective cells and the facilities available.

2 . Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the alleged lack of medical treatment while detained in Jilava Prison?