CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mai 2013

.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 } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 77474/12 Nicolae MÎRŢAN against Romania lodged on 15 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Nicolae Mîrţan, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1962. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Starting from 27 May 2008 the applicant was detained in a number of different detention centres. He has been mostly detained in Ploieşti   Prison, where he is serving his sentence at present. He was also detained in Mărgineni and Jilava Prisons. 1.     The applicant’s material conditions of detention Referring to all three prisons the applicant complains about overcrowding, lack of proper conditions of hygiene and the poor quality of food. The applicant alleges that there were parasites and bedbugs in the cells. The cells occupied by the applicant did not have any furniture in which to keep personal objects and food; therefore the prisoners were forced to keep them under their beds where there were hundreds of insects. 2.     The applicant’s domestic complaints concerning the material conditions of detention and the lack of medical treatment a)     The applicant’s complaint concerning his material conditions of detention On 25 February 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint against Ploieşti   Prison seeking damages for his inhuman conditions of detention. The applicant claimed that he shared a cell of thirty square   metres with twenty ‑ three other co-detainees. He also complained that the cell did not have any furniture, no special place for eating or placing the personal belongings. On 23 June 2011 the Ploieşti County Court dismissed his complaint on the ground that the prison could not be held liable for his conditions of detention. The court held inter alia that the prison did not cause him any damage, offering conditions of detention which could not be considered inhuman or degrading. The first-instance judgment was upheld by a final decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice delivered on 15   May   2012. b)     The applicant’s complaints for lack of medical assistance On 17 August 2011 and 9 July 2012 the applicant lodged two   complaints with the judge responsible with the execution of the prison sentences in Ploieşti   Prison. Relying on Article 50 of Law no. 275/2006 he claimed that his right of access to medical assistance had been infringed. Both complaints were dismissed on 26 August 2011 and 19   July 2012 respectively. Based on the information provided by the applicant it appears that he did not appeal any of the judgments. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention in Ploieşti, Jilava and Mărgineni Prisons especially with regard to overcrowding, lack of hygiene conditions and poor quality of food. 2.     Under the same article he complains about the alleged infringement of his right to medical assistance during his detention in Ploieşti Prison. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, due to the conditions of his detention in Ploieşti, Jilava and Mărgineni Prisons? The Government are invited to provide information and supporting documents on the material conditions of the applicant’ detention in all three   prisons, in particular concerning the size of the cells, the number of the detainees in the cells at the time the applicant was detained and the facilities available.