CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB7A0F3ED { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9DF5EED7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:12.6pt; text-align:justify } .s39A3E02A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE89AC62E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sDA3271E8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA337C0C9 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s96C7D1E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s429BD593 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7C34E2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s246FFAEC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA09099FA { width:33.01pt; display:inline-block } .s45DD464F { width:140.57pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 7262/06 Dumitru Aurel DANILIUC against Romania The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 2 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Egbert Myjer,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2006, Having regard to the decision taken by the President of the Chamber to   appoint Mrs Kristina Pardalos to sit as ad hoc judge (Article   26   § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court), as Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule   28 of the Rules of Court), Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Dumitru-Aurel Daniliuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967. He is currently detained in Arad Maximum Security Prison. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     By a final judgment of 15 January 2003 the Arad County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was imprisoned in Arad Maximum Security Prison. 3.     The applicant lodged his first application with the Court on 23   August   2003; however, his file was destroyed because he had not submitted a complete application pack by the required time-limit. 4.     The applicant lodged a second application with the Court on 24   January 2006 alleging that he had sent the first application pack by the required time-limit as instructed by the Court’s letter of 17   September 2003, but that the Arad Prison authorities had failed to post his letter. 1.     The conditions of detention and confidentiality of phone conversations (a)     The applicant 5.     According to the information submitted by the applicant, the food provided by the Arad Prison authorities was insufficient, poorly cooked, failed to include certain food groups (meat, milk, sweets and fruit), was lacking in nutritional value, and was served in unhygienic conditions. Moreover, he did not have adequate access to drinking water because the supply was repeatedly cut off. 6.     Furthermore he complained that he had been unable to make his phone calls in private as they could be overheard by the prison guards and other prisoners. 7.     On 22 January 2008 the applicant submitted five statements by fellow inmates in support of his application, which generally back up his complaints concerning the quality of the food and lack of adequate access to drinking water. 8.     In a letter of 28 September 2011 the applicant informed the Court that his phone problem had been solved and that he now had daily access to phone conversations. (b)     The Government 9.     According to the information submitted by the Government, the Arad Prison was connected to the public water network and was permanently supplied with drinking water. 10.     Between 26 and 31 January 2007 the applicant was hospitalised in Jilava Prison Hospital because he was suffering from gastritis. Upon his discharge from the prison hospital he was recommended a diet suitable for his gastritis. He was given a special diet until October 2009, when this was modified to take into account the applicant’s medical condition of dystrophia which led to the wasting of his muscles. 11.     The applicant’s daily diet contained 4,000 calories and included all the food groups. The food was varied and was not cooked in the same way all the time. The quality of the ingredients was checked on a daily basis by the prison’s governor, a doctor and a representative of the prisoners. 12.     The prison had two rooms fitted with two and three phones, respectively. From March 2007 the phones were fitted with booths in order to preserve the confidentiality of the phone conversations. The prison wardens charged with the surveillance of the prisoners’ phone conversations had a duty to record the numbers dialled by the prisoners in a report and then to visually supervise the prisoners during the phone conversations. 13.     From 2009 the Arad Prison was fitted with an electronic phone system and twenty-one phones were installed in all the detention areas. The prisoners were granted the right to use the phones on a daily basis under visual supervision. 2.     Proceedings brought by the applicant relying on the provisions of Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 regulating the rights of detained persons 14.     On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against Arad Prison seeking a court order to force the prison authorities to provide him with copies of his prison file. 15.     By a final judgment of 18 November 2004 the Arad County Court allowed the applicant’s action in part and ordered the prison authorities to provide him with copies of the covering notes of his prison file, on the ground that these contained notes made by the authorities concerning the applicant, including how much of a danger he was considered to be. The court held, with regard to the other documents contained in the file, that according to the applicant’s own statements he had already been allowed access to them and had been provided with copies. Finally, the court dismissed his request for copies of the photographs contained in the file, stating that they were photographs taken on his arrival at the prison and that he had insufficient justification for being given them. 16.     On 10 April 2006, the applicant brought proceedings against the Arad Prison authorities seeking a court order to force them to stop the ill ‑ treatment he alleged he was being subjected to. He argued that, among other things, the food was insufficient and of poor quality and that he had been repeatedly taken before the domestic courts in restrictive handcuffs and chains. He also asked to be taken to a specialist for a medical examination and argued that the confidentiality of his phone conversations was not being respected in so far as his conversations could be overheard by other prisoners and the wardens and the fact that he had been compelled to inform the prison authorities of the phone numbers he wished to call prior to dialling the numbers. 17.     On 19 September 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the Arad Prison authorities seeking a court order to force them to take him for an ophthalmological examination. He argued that as a result of the poor living conditions, in particular the thick metal grille obstructing natural light from entering the “metal cage” he was living in, he had partially lost his eye sight. 18.     By a final judgment of 9 November 2006 the Arad County Court allowed in part the action brought by the applicant against the Arad Prison authorities on 10 April 2006 and ordered them to ensure the confidentiality of the applicant’s phone conversations. The domestic court held that according to Article 9 § 1 of Emergency Ordinance no.   56/2003, phone conversations were to be treated as confidential. However, according to witness statements, the applicant’s conversations had taken place in a room fitted with three phones and no phone booths, in the presence of two prison wardens and other prisoners. Consequently, the prison wardens and the other prisoners present in the room might have been able to overhear the applicant’s conversations. 19.     The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. It held that, although this was a complaint not regulated by Ordinance no.   56/2003, according to the information submitted by the Arad Prison authorities the daily diet provided to the applicant had contained 2,855   calories and had been of good quality. The applicant had not substantiated his claim that he had asked the prison medical staff to take him to be examined by a specialist. The witnesses heard by the court in respect of the applicant’s claim of being tightly handcuffed and chained were unable to report on the applicant’s individual situation and, in any event, the prison authorities reported that his restraint was prescribed by paragraph 12   (4) of Ministry of Justice Order no. 2964/C/1999, which was applicable in his case. Finally, the fact that the prison authorities had limited the duration and number of the applicant’s phone conversations did not breach any of the applicant’s rights - a practice that was allowed by Ordinance no. 56/2003. 20.     By a final judgment of 14 December 2006 the Arad County Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the Arad Prison authorities on 19 September 2006 on the ground that his claims were unsubstantiated. The applicant’s prison medical file did not contain any record that he was suffering from eye problems or that he had requested to see a specialist physician. Moreover, the metal grille fitted to the window was closed only during the night, between 7.30 p.m. and 7.30 a.m., and the room was fitted with a 120 cm neon light which was kept on even during the day when the grille was open. 3.     Proceedings brought by the applicant relying on the provisions of Law no. 275/2006 concerning the execution of prison sentences 21.     On 8 November 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the prison authorities, seeking to obtain a court order to stop the prison wardens from recording the phone numbers he called and from limiting the number of his phone calls. Moreover, he demanded that the metal grill (fitted one metre from the door and window of his cell) be removed on the ground that this prevented natural light from entering the room, made it impossible for him to open the window, and caused him to live in a metal cage. 22.     On 23 November 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the Arad Prison authorities seeking to be declassified from the “maximum security” regime under which he was detained. 23.     By a final judgment of 15 January 2007 the Arad District Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 23 November 2006 on the grounds that the seriousness of his crime and his conduct did not justify his declassification from the “maximum security” regime. 24.     By a final judgment of 26 February 2007 the Arad District Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 8 November 2006 on the ground that the requirement to pre-register the phone numbers the applicant was calling and the limitation on the number of phone calls he could make pursued a legitimate aim and did not interfere with the requirement of confidentiality of private phone conversations. This measure was put in force in order to deter the applicant from committing new crimes and the authorities were able to keep a record of the number of calls made by each prisoner and the individuals he had telephone contact with. Further, this was the only way each prisoner could be allowed access to phone calls given the limited number of available phones. The court also dismissed the applicant’s action seeking the removal of the metal grille fitted in his cell, on the ground that the grille served as a deterrent against escape. However, the court ordered the Arad Prison authorities to enforce a schedule for the opening of a door fitted in this grille facing the window so that the applicant could air the room. The court held that the door of the grille should be open at least between 7   a.m. and 7 p.m. during the winter and between 7 a.m. and 9   p.m. during the summer. 25.     On 31 July 2007 the applicant brought proceedings against the Arad Prison authorities, seeking a court order to force them to provide him with full copies of Ministry of Justice Orders nos. 144/C/2002 and 1852/C/2006. 26.     By a final judgment of 31 January 2008 the Arad District Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 31 July 2007 on the ground that the orders requested by the applicant were not mentioned in Article 43 § 1 of Law no. 275/2006 as being among those documents which were required to be made available to prisoners, and that they did not concern the applicant directly. The orders regulated the functioning of the special security measures in maximum security prisons and the applicant had not provided a reason why he needed full copies of such documents, particularly since he had already been provided with copies of the excerpts from the said orders which did concern him directly. 4.     Other sets of complaints and proceedings 27.     On 23 May and 23 June 2006 the applicant complained to the National Prison Administration that although he had not been classified as a highly dangerous inmate, he had been restrained each time he was taken before the domestic courts. He claimed that the prison guards intentionally tightened the restraints in order to cause him physical suffering. Moreover, he argued that his living conditions, in so far as the metal grille fitted to his room was concerned, did not comply with the acknowledged European standards for prisoners. 28.     In two letters, nos. B21113 and B21128, the National Prison Administration informed the applicant that his living conditions and the methods used by the prison wardens to restrain him complied with the provisions of the Romanian Ministry of Justice Order no. 2964/C/1999, which set out the rules for prisoners serving life sentences, and provided him with the relevant excerpts from the said order. Moreover, the applicant was informed that, as of 6 March 2006, he was no longer classified as a “highly dangerous” prisoner. 29.     On 11 October and 1 November 2006, relying on the provisions of the Criminal Code of Romania (the Criminal Code), the applicant brought proceedings against three employees of Arad Prison, namely P.L., M.N. and A.P., for unlawful interference with his correspondence. 30.     On an unspecified date in 2006, again relying on the provisions of the Criminal Code, the applicant brought proceedings against E.S.P. and S.T., prison wardens at Arad Prison, for unlawful censorship and interception of his phone conversations. The applicant complained that the serial number of the phone card he had used and the numbers he had dialled had been registered in a phone record book and that the confidentiality of his conversations had been breached in so far as his phone conversations had been conducted on at the same time as other prisoners who were using the other two phones available in the room. 31.     On 8 January 2007 the applicant brought proceedings against the head of Arad Prison for abuse of power. He argued that on 7 January 2007 the head of the prison had not allowed him to phone his family and he had stated that the applicant could phone his family only on certain dates. Lastly, the prison authorities had breached the confidentiality of his phone calls because he had been forced to disclose the phone numbers he was calling. 32.     By a final judgment of 21 May 2007 the Arad County Court dismissed the applicant’s action against E.S.P. and S.T. on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed by the prison wardens The court held that E.S.P. and S.T. had performed their lawful duty and ensured that all prisoners had access to the phones at least once a week, in compliance with the applicable legal provisions. The fact that the applicant had been compelled to register, in a phone record book, the serial number of the phone card he was using and the numbers he wished to dial did not amount to censorship of his phone conversations. 33.     By a final judgment of 25 July 2007 the Arad County Court dismissed the proceedings brought by the applicant on 11 October and 1   November 2006 against P.L., M.N. and A.P. on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. The court held that P.L. had mistakenly cut an opening of 2 cm in envelope no.   11216 before he realised that it was addressed to the applicant. However, the envelope had not been further opened and no one had been able to see or copy its contents. Moreover, the applicant had not raised any objections or complaints in respect of this damage at the time he was handed the envelope by M.N. and A.P. 34.     By a final judgment of 18 October 2007 the Arad County Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 8 January 2007 on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed by the governor of Arad Prison. It held that the Arad District Court had already examined the applicant’s complaints concerning the restriction of his phone rights to certain dates and his duty to disclose the numbers he wished to dial and had found it lawful. Moreover, the applicant had not indicated any emergency that would have justified his demand for access to the phone on a particular date. B.     Relevant domestic and international law 35.     Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Emergency Ordinance No. 56/2003, Law No. 275/2006 and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Petrea   v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22-23, 29   April   2008); Bragadireanu v. Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6   December 2007); and Coşcodar v. Romania ((dec.) no. 36020/06, §§   11 ‑ 12, 9   March   2010). 36.     Section 12 of the Ministry of Justice Order no. 2964/C/1999 provides that restraints must be used in respect of prisoners serving a life sentence when they are transferred from the prison, appear in public or attend hearings before domestic courts. 37.     Article 43 § 1 of Law no. 275/2006 provides that, immediately following their imprisonment, prisoners are to be provided with copies of Laws nos. 544/2001, 275/2006 and the rules governing the enforcement of the said laws, copies of the orders and the relevant sections of the Romanian Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the execution of prison sentences, and copies of the prison rules and guidelines. 38.     Section 6 of the Ministry of Justice’s Order no. 4622/2003 and the National Prison Administration’s decision no. 81800/2007 oblige the prison wardens to move away from the prisoner after they have witnessed him dialling the number he has registered in advance, in order to ensure the privacy of the phone conversation. COMPLAINTS 39.     Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the conditions of detention in Arad Prison were inappropriate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He argued that the food provided by the prison authorities was insufficient, poorly cooked, failed to include certain food groups (meat, milk, sweets and fruit), lacked nutritional value, and was served in unhygienic conditions. Moreover, he did not have adequate access to drinking water because the supply was repeatedly cut off, and his room was fitted with a metal grille which transformed the room into a metal cage, preventing him from having direct access to the door and window of his cell, particularly during the night. 40.     Invoking in substance the same Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that he was made to wear an orange prison suit and was chained and handcuffed and thus subjected to possible public contempt every time he appeared in public and was taken to or attended public court hearings. 41.     Relying in substance on the same Article of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the medical examination provided to detainees was superficial. 42.     Invoking in substance Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his phone calls lacked privacy, could be overheard by the prison wardens and other prisoners, were limited in number, and he was forced to register the phone numbers he wished to dial with the authorities beforehand. 43.     Relying in substance on the same Article of the Convention, the applicant made a general complaint of interference with his right to correspondence. 44.     Invoking, in substance, Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the prison authorities had intercepted the first application pack he had submitted to the Court in support of his application - resulting in his first file being destroyed. They had also failed to provide him with copies of his prison file. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 45.     The applicant complained about having been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in Arad Prison. He argued that the conditions of detention were inappropriate owing to the lack of sufficient drinking water and the inadequate food and that he had been repeatedly made to appear in public wearing handcuffs and chains when he was taken to or attended public court hearings. He relied expressly, or in substance, on Article   3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 1.     Complaint concerning the material conditions of detention (a)     The parties’ submissions 46.     The Government raised a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in so far as the applicant had failed to raise his complaint concerning the lack of access to drinking water before the domestic courts on the basis of Emergency Ordinance no.   56/2003 and subsequently on the basis of Law no. 275/2006. Moreover he had failed to prove his allegations of improper conditions of detention and the domestic courts had dismissed his complaint concerning the quality of the food as ill ‑ founded. Consequently, they considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were adequate. 47.     The applicant disagreed. He argued that the food he had received in prison was inappropriate, lacked flavour and prevented him from maintaining his physical and mental health. Moreover, the drinking water had been cut off occasionally during the night. (b)     The Court’s assessment 48.     The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s preliminary objections concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of lack of drinking water because it considers that the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention is, in any event, inadmissible for the following reasons. 49.     The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well ‑ being are adequately secured (see Valašinas v. Lithuania , no.   44558/98, §   102, ECHR   2001 ‑ VIII, and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §   94, ECHR   2000-XI). 50.     The State authorities’ obligation to ensure the health and general well-being of a detainee includes amongst other things, an obligation to provide him with adequate nourishment (see Kadiķis v. Latvia (no.   2), no.   62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006). 51.     The Court reiterates that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first ‑ instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the   United   Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). 52.     In the present case the Court notes from the outset that the parties offered conflicting descriptions of the conditions of detention in Arad Prison. Whereas the applicant claimed that he had been provided with poor food and that occasionally he did not have access to drinking water, the Government contested his claim and argued that the nourishment provided to the applicant was adequate and that he had received unrestricted access to drinking water. 53.     The Court observes that the applicant submitted the statements of five other inmates in support of his claims. However, it does not appear from the evidence available in the file that he raised before the domestic courts the complaints concerning the lack of occasional access to drinking water and the unhygienic conditions under which the food was served in spite of the numerous court proceedings in which he was involved. Moreover, it does not appear that the conditions of detentions described by the applicant impacted badly on his physical or psychological well-being (see Sabeva v. Bulgaria , no. 44290/07, § 41, 10 June 2010). In this context, given the applicant’s history of gastritis, the Court does not discern any direct link between his medical condition (see paragraph 10 above) and the alleged lack of sufficient and good quality food provided to him. Furthermore, the domestic courts examined the applicant’s complaint concerning the insufficiency and the poor quality of the food and dismissed it by a reasoned judgment (see paragraph 19 above). 54.   The Court is unable to find any corroboration of the applicant’s allegations in the CPT’s or the Romanian Helsinki Committee’s reports, which relate to other prison establishments and not to Arad Prison (see Sabeva , cited above § 41), and make no general observation about the inadequacy of the food and about the lack of access to drinking water in Romanian prisons. 55.     Having regard to the above, the Court is not convinced that the conditions of detention described by the applicant subjected him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being were not adequately secured. 56.     It follows that this part of his complaints is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Complaint concerning the use of restraints (a)     The parties’ submissions 57.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint of being handcuffed was not allowed by the domestic courts because the testimonies of the other detainees called as witnesses by the applicant did not confirm that this measure had been imposed in his case (see paragraph 19 above). In any event, they argued that the seriousness of the applicant’s offence and his life sentence warranted the use of handcuffs on specific occasions such as transfers outside the prison. Moreover, taking into account the applicant’s classification as a highly dangerous detainee, these measures were prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and were proportionate to the requirements of human rights in so far as the applicant did not suffer any damage as a result. 58.     The applicant did not submit observations on this point. (b)     The Court’s assessment 59.     The Court reiterates that the use of handcuffs or other instruments of restraint does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with lawful detention and does not entail the use of force or public exposure exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person’s absconding or causing injury or damage (see Raninen v. Finland , 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, and Mathew v. the Netherlands , no.   24919/03, § 180, ECHR 2005 IX). However, the manner in which the applicant is subjected to these measures should not go beyond the threshold of a minimum level of severity as envisaged by the Court’s case-law under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Nevmerzhitsky v.   Ukraine , no.   54825/00, § 94, ECHR 2005–II). 60.     The Court notes that while the Government did not contest the applicant’s submission that the prison authorities used restraints against him, it appears that they contested that the measures in question involved handcuffing. However, the Court observes that they did not provide any additional information in respect of any other forms of restraint that the authorities might have used in the applicant’s case. Consequently, the Court considers that it is reasonable to accept the applicant’s statement that he was restrained inter alia by handcuffs. 61.     The Court notes that the applicant stated that he had felt publicly humiliated by being transferred from prison and by appearing before domestic courts handcuffed and in chains. This consideration is no doubt relevant for the purposes of determining whether the contested treatment was “degrading” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. 62.     However, the Court notes that the seriousness of the applicant’s conviction and the violent nature of the criminal act with which he was convicted gave reasonable grounds to fear that there was a significant danger that he could resort to violence. Moreover, there is no evidence in the file that the applicant was affected by the restraints applied on him and that they were aimed at debasing or humiliating him (see Raninen , cited above, § 58). 63.     Having regard to the above, the Court is not convinced that the treatment in issue attained the minimum level of severity required by Article   3 of the Convention. 64.     It follows that this part of his complaints is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. B.     Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention 65.     The applicant complained that the facilities for making phone calls from Arad Prison to the outside world had lacked privacy inasmuch as his phone conversations could be overheard by the prison wardens and other prisoners. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 1.     The parties’ submissions 66.     The Government submitted that any detention which was lawful for the purpose of Article 5 of the Convention entailed, by its nature, a limitation on the individual’s private and family life. They accepted that the restrictions regarding the manner in which the applicant’s phone calls had taken place could have constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to private life. They contended, however, that the restrictive measures affecting the applicant were prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and were not disproportionate as there was no evidence of any improper use of the contents of the phone conversations. 67.     The applicant submitted that his phone problems had now been resolved and that he was now able to have daily conversations with the outside world. 2.     The Court’s assessment 68.     The Court reiterates that according to its well-established case law in respect of telephone facilities, Article   8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to make telephone calls, in particular where the facilities for contact by way of correspondence are available and adequate. Where, as in the present case, telephone facilities are provided by the prison authorities, these may – having regard to the ordinary and reasonable conditions of prison life – be subjected to legitimate restrictions, for example, in the light of the shared nature of the facilities with other prisoners and the requirements of the prevention of disorder and crime (see A.B. v. the Netherlands , no.   37328/97, §§ 92-93, 29   January 2002, and Coşcodar v. Romania (dec.), no. 36020/06, §   30, 9   March 2010). 69.     Even assuming that the fact that other individuals, including prison wardens, may have overheard the content of the applicant’s phone conversations could be regarded as an interference with his rights to private life and correspondence, the Court considers that the restriction of the applicant’s rights could be justified in the light of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 8. In this connection the Court must take into account the need for detainees to share the limited number of phones available in prison and the authorities’ duty to prevent disorder and crime (see Coşcodar , cited above, § 30). 70.     The Court reiterates that it has already decided in circumstances similar to those in the present case that, although part of the domestic law regulating the visual surveillance of prisoners’ conversations by the prison wardens was not published in the Official Gazette, the interference was prescribed by law, was foreseeable for the applicant and lacked arbitrariness given the complete absence of any indication that the information gleaned thereby was used by the authorities or otherwise (see Coşcodar , cited above, § 34). 71.     The Court notes that it does not appear from the evidence in the file that the content of the applicant’s conversations was recorded and used against him or that the applicant was unaware that his conversations might be heard by the prison wardens and the other detainees present in the room (see, by contrast, Wisse v. France , no.   71611/01, §   29-30, 20 December 2005). While it is undisputed that the domestic courts held that the absence of phone booths might lead to other people in the room hearing the applicant’s conversations, it appears that the prison authorities remedied this problem by fitting the phones with booths (see paragraph   12 above). Moreover, the applicant had not made any further complaints before the domestic courts that his conversations could be overheard by the prison wardens present in the room and had stated in his last submission before the Court that his phone problems had been solved. Furthermore, nothing in the file indicates that the applicant had been unable to maintain contact with his family and friends by way of correspondence or family visits. 72.     Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the restriction imposed on the applicant’s rights by the Arad Prison authorities was not disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Coşcodar , cited above, § 35). 73.     It follows that this part of the applicant’s complaints is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 74.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Arad Prison in so far as his cell was fitted with a metal grille which transformed the cell into a metal cage and prevented him from having direct access to the door and window of his cell, particularly during the night. Moreover, he argued that he was taken to court hearings wearing an orange prison uniform. Furthermore, he argued that the medical examination provided to detainees was superficial. Invoking Article   8 of the Convention the applicant complained of a breach of his right to private life and correspondence on account of the limited number of phone calls he was allowed and the obligation to pre-register the phone numbers he wished to dial with the prison authorities, as well as through an alleged interference with his mail. Relying on Article 34 of the Convention the applicant complained that the prison authorities had intercepted the first application pack he had submitted to the Court in support of his application and had failed to provide him with copies of his prison file. 75.     The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as they fall within its jurisdiction, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President