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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 67591/12 Dumitru MARDARE against Romania lodged on 29 August 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Dumitru Mardare, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1955. He is currently detained in Iaşi Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Since 12 October 2011 the applicant was held in a number of different detention centres. Initially he was detained in the arrest facility of Bistriţa   Prison and then transferred to Gherla, Bistriţa, Jilava, Mândresti ‑ Focşani and Iaşi Prisons. In respect of the establishments in which he was detained, the applicant alleges that he was kept in overcrowded cells in poor conditions of hygiene and received poor food, not adapted to his medical condition. He further claims that despite the fact that he is non-smoker he had to share the cell with smokers. The applicant alleges that in Mândresti-Focşani Prison he was kept in the prison’s yard for ten to twelve hours at minus ten degrees Celsius. As regards the conditions of detention in Iaşi Prison, where he is detained at present the applicant provides more detailed information. Without indicating the surface of the cell the applicant complains of overcrowding. He claims that he shares the cell with twenty-six other co-detainees. He also claims that the cell is very dirty and infested with bugs and that the mattresses are old and dirty. The applicant alleges that he did not receive a proper medical treatment for his diabetes and ischemic discopathy indicating that he raised this   complaint before the domestic authorities. However, he did not submit any evidence in this respect alleging that he had difficulties in obtaining copies of the documents necessary for lodging his application with the   Court. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of detention in several prisons, in particular overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene, lack of sufficient and adequate food. He also complains that despite that he is non-smoker he had to share his cell with smokers. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the repeated transfers from one prison to another within a short period of time. 3.     Relying on the same article of the Convention the applicant further complains about the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for his   illnesses. 4.     Relying in substance on Article 34 of the Convention the applicant invokes that he could not enter in the possession of copies of his   complaints addressed to the domestic authorities in order to submit them to the Court together with the application. QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Has the applicant been detained in inhuman conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his   complaint that he was subjected to inhuman treatment due to the fact that he was transferred six times in one year from one place of detention to another? Assuming that there is no effective remedy under domestic law, was the transfer of the applicant six times in one year from one place of detention to another compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention owing to the lack of adequate medical care in prison for his illnesses? The Government are requested to submit a copy of the applicant’s medical file and a transcript of it.   4.     Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention taking into the account the difficulties he allegedly encountered in obtaining copies from the documents existent in his personal file? The Government are invited to provide copies of documents existent in the applicant’s personal file which are relevant to the present application.