Information Note on the Court’s case-law 73

March 2005

Ostrovar v. Moldova (dec.) - 35207/03

Decision 22.3.2005 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Alleged prohibition to receive visits from family members whilst in detention: admissible

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Alleged overcrowding, lack of medical assistance and unhealthy living conditions in a remand centre: admissible

The applicant was arrested on charges of bribe-taking (later modified to corruption) and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He served two periods of detention in a remand centre which he argues was overcrowded and had unhygienic living and sanitary conditions. He cla ims that smoking was not prohibited in the cell and because of its poor ventilation the asthma condition he suffered was aggravated. In particular, as he was refused medication he had to endure several asthma attacks without any medical assistance. He also complains of the quality of the food and the lack of opportunities for recreation at the centre. In addition, the applicant brings complaints under Article 8 as he claims that prison officials interfered with his correspondence (letters from his lawyer an d the prosecutor’s office, with the Council of Europe Information Office and the Court, and incoming correspondence from his mother). He also alleges that he was denied the right of being visited by his wife and daughter. On this last question he complaine d to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which dismissed the complaint. The applicant challenged the refusal in the District court, which in a decision allegedly not sent to the applicant, dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

Admissible under Article 3, Article 8 (concerning the applicant’s right to correspondence with his mother) and Article 13. The Government’s objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies): The Court was not convinced that the remedies advanced by the Government could have improved the applicant’s conditions of detention, nor that they were effective concerning his complaints under Article 8. It therefore concluded that the application could not be declared inadmissible on the grounds of such an obj ection.

Inadmissible under Article 8 (concerning the applicant’s right to correspondence with his lawyer, the prosecutor’s office, the Information Office of the Council of Europe and the Court): there was no evidence that such correspondence had been opened or read by the pris on authorities: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes