CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1B6AF0FA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 3562/11 Mihaly DEME against Romania lodged on 15 December 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mihaly Deme, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and is currently serving his sentence in Codlea Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant was arrested on 23 June 2010 on the basis of a preliminary judgment rendered by the Sfântu Gheorghe District Court. He was accused that in the evening of 19 June 2010 he entered into a restaurant and stole a wallet. According to a forensic report of 29 October 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with personality disorder and hepatitis B and D. The applicant’s requests to be released from prison pending trial, mainly on medical grounds, were dismissed by the Sfântu Gheorghe District Court on 3 and 31 August, 28 September, 26 October and 8 November   2010 respectively. The court held that a proper medical treatment could be ensured by the prison hospital. All the appeals on points of law lodged by the applicant were dismissed. On 16   November 2010 the Sfântu Gheorghe District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to three years and six months imprisonment. The Brasov Court of Appeal upheld the judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal. 2.     Conditions of detention The applicant started his detention in Codlea Prison on 23 June   2010. He is currently detained in the same prison. He mainly complains of overcrowding. He alleges that he shares a cell of 30 square meters with eight other detainees, the toilets and the showers are included in this surface. He claims that he should have been detained in the medical unit of the prison because he suffers from hepatitis C and D and receives treatment with interferon three times per week. He also claims that he is ill-treated and marginalised by his co-detainees on the ground that he suffers from a contagious disease. In this respect he mentions an incident occurred on 11   December 2010 when one of the co-detainees caused him injuries which needed between three and four days of medical treatment for recovery. The applicant produced a medical certificate attesting the alleged ill-treatment. However, he did not raise any complaint about ill-treatment. The applicant also alleges that food is poor and inadequate for his medical condition. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Codlea Prison. 2.     Under Article   5 § 3 he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention. QUESTION Are the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Codlea Prison in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations regarding the overcrowding and poor quality of food?   The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the size of the respective cell; the number of the detainees in the cell at the time the applicant was detained and the food offered to the applicant.