CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 36231/07 Ion CONSTANTIN against Romania lodged on 13 August 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Ion Constantin, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Ploieşti Prison. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. By a final judgment delivered on an unspecified date in 2005 the Mizil District Court convicted the applicant for aggravated theft and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. On 19 January 2005 the applicant was detained in Ploieşti Prison. According to the medical report produced by the Ploieşti Prison doctor on 18 March 2005 the applicant was clinically healthy. Between 18 March 2005 and 14 June 2007 the applicant was examined repeatedly by prison and civilian doctors, but he was never diagnosed with a heart condition. On 27 June 2007 the applicant suffered a heart attack. Between 27 June and 5 July 2007 the applicant was hospitalized at the cardiology unit of the Ploieşti County Hospital and he was treated for his medical condition. According to his discharge papers his condition improved during his hospitalisation. Between 5 and 12 July 2007 the applicant was hospitalized in the Bucharest Prison Hospital where he continued to be monitored and treated for his heart condition. According to the discharge papers his condition improved during his hospitalisation, but he demanded to be discharged from the hospital without the doctor’s consent and in spite of the fact that he had been warned about the potential medical risks. Starting from 12 July 2007 the applicant was monitored and was provided treatment for his heart condition by the Ploieşti Prison’s medical staff. By a decision of 7 August 2007 the Ploieşti Prison’s commission charged with the examination of the detainee’s requests for conditional release dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that he had not served two thirds of his sentence. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. By a decision of 3 August 2007 the judged charged with the execution of prison sentences attached to Ploieşti Prison dismissed the applicant’s request to have the regime of serving of his prison sentence changed. It held that the applicant failed to make consistent attempts to socially reintegrate himself. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged the decision before the domestic courts. In his submissions before the Court on 13 August and 17   September   2007 the applicant stated that on 27 June 2007 when he suffered the heart attack he was working outside the prison. After he informed his supervisor that he was feeling unwell he was taken to the Ploieşti Prison’s doctor who recommended that he be urgently taken to the Ploieşti County Hospital. He asked to be transported to hospital by ambulance because his situation was an emergency. The prison guards allegedly informed him that the prison’s ambulance was for the prison’s staff members and not for detainees. Afterwards, they forced him to climb into an old and unventilated van with four other inmates and transported him to the hospital. His journey lasted for approximately one hour and by the time he reached the hospital he had lost consciousness. COMPLAINTS Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains of inhuman and degrading treatment because he was not provided with adequate medical treatment for his heart condition and he was transported to hospital for approximately one hour in an old and unventilated van with four other detainees in spite of his urgent medical condition and the fact that the Ploieşti Prison was equipped with an ambulance. In addition, the prison guards allegedly forced him to climb into the van and he lost consciousness prior to reaching the hospital as a result of the inappropriate transport conditions. Lastly, the domestic authorities dismissed his requests to have his prison regime changed and for conditional release, without taking into consideration that he had suffered a heart attack in prison. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in connection with his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was Law   no. 275/2006 an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of adequate transport conditions?   2.     If so, has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, owing to an alleged lack of adequate transport conditions to the Ploieşti County Hospital on 27   June   2006 after he had suffered a heart attack?