CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 26 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 56336/10 Adrian POPESCU against Romania lodged on 13 September 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Adrian Popescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lived in Bucharest before his arrest. He is currently detained in Jilava Prison in Bucharest. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant 3.     On 3 July 2007 the applicant’s car collided head-on with another, as the applicant was driving in the opposite lane while trying to avoid cars parked on his side of the road. The applicant got out of the car, approached the other driver, who was immobilised in his seat, and then left the scene of the accident. The other driver died of his injuries few days later in hospital. 4.     In his first statements to the police the applicant denied having been driving the car. He subsequently confessed and then maintained his position throughout the proceedings. 5.     On 4 November 2008 he was committed to trial for manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. 6.     The case was heard by Bucharest District Court. The applicant expressed the wish not to make a statement before the court. He adduced evidence (documents) and was represented by counsel who pleaded the case. The applicant admitted that he had been driving the car, but denied trying to flee the scene of the accident. He maintained that, in fact, he had been beaten up by third parties after the accident and had fled in order to escape the violence. He adduced a medical certificate attesting to traumas on his thighs, hips and knees. 7.     On 16 June 2009, based on the evidence in the file, specifically technical and medical expert reports, witness statements and documents, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to two years and six months in prison and ordered him to pay damages to the civil party. The court noted that the applicant had changed his statement during the investigation and considered that the confession corresponded better to the evidence in the file, in particular the statements by eyewitnesses. It also discounted the applicant’s explanation as to why he had fled the scene; it pointed out that the injuries sustained by him were consistent with the trauma caused by the accident, rather than with a subsequent attack by other individuals. 8.     The parties appealed against the judgment, the applicant seeking in particular that the sentence be suspended and that the damages be re ‑ evaluated. On 28 October 2009 the Bucharest County Court held that the first ‑ instance court had made a correct assessment of the facts in the light of the evidence before it and upheld the sentence; it did however modify the award in respect of damages. 9.     The parties appealed on points of law, arguing that the lower courts had not heard all the relevant evidence for the defence, and argued that the courts had not established the facts of the case correctly. In a final decision of 26 March 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that the first-instance court had assessed the facts and evidence in the file correctly; it therefore dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the decision rendered by the County Court and upheld the District Court’s decision of 16 June 2009. B.     The applicant’s detention 10.     On an unspecified date, the applicant started serving his sentence in Jilava Prison. 11.     The applicant, a non-smoker, is sharing a cell with twenty smokers whom he has to ask not to smoke too close to him, as the smoke makes him sick. He has complained to the authorities, but to no avail. The applicant further describes as follows the conditions of detention: the cell is infested with bedbugs, but nothing is done by the authorities about pest control, nor are the inmates allowed sprays to kill the insects. The applicant is not allowed to receive clean bedding, detergent or soap from home. The bedding is only changed every three months. At one point, the prison authorities refused to give him a parcel of clean underwear sent by his mother. He also maintained that although he had been granted the right to have a water boiler in the cell, he had not yet received the actual device. 12.     The tap water is not drinkable because it is heavily contaminated with rust from the pipes. COMPLAINTS 13.     Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of poor conditions of detention in Jilava Prison and of the fact that he has to share a cell with smokers although he is a non-smoker. 14.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and the court lacked impartiality, as the trial was not based on the evidence in the file. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the effective remedies concerning the conditions of detention, in particular concerning being kept with smokers in the cell?   2.     Were the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison during the applicant’s stay in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide information on the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular as regards: the size and occupancy of the cells in which the applicant has been held; their state of cleanliness and facilities and the quality of food and water; as well as the record of any complaint made by the applicant concerning the conditions of detention, and in particular concerning the allegations that he was kept with smokers in the cell despite being a non-smoker.