CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .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 } .s890DF980 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5D0298BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE0A7027A { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 36513/12 Gheorghe ENĂȘOAIE against Romania lodged on 18 May 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Enășoaie, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Roman. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I. Popa, a lawyer practicing in Bacău. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In his initial letters the applicant informed the Court that between 29   September 2011 and 19 June 2012 he was detained pending trial after criminal proceedings had been opened against him for bribe taking. The criminal proceedings opened against him are still pending before the domestic courts. During his pre-trial detention he was incarcerated in the Bacău Police Department’s Arrest and Prison in a cell with smokers, although he was a non-smoker and was suffering from a heart condition. He submitted that he was unable to rest because the other detainees were smoking continuously from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. and the cell was covered by thick smoke. He also contended that the cell did not have enough furniture, in particular coat hangers, shelves and cupboards. The clothes were stored on the floor, under the bed where no cleaning was carried out. The bathrooms lacked shelves and intimacy as there was no separation between the washing area and the toilet facilities. In addition, the cell was damp, measured 15   sq.   m., had a volume of air of 50 cubic meters, was fitted with six beds and was occupied by 10 detainees. Cleaning materials and materials required to combat dampness were provided by his family and in the absence of any action from the prison authorities he and the other detainees had to clean the cell on their own. The cell was not heated during the cold season and as a result of the extreme cold the applicant had to ask his family to provide him with warmer bed linen. Also, the cell was infested with flees, lice, bed bugs and mosquitoes, but the detainees were not allowed to disinfect the cell even at their own expense. The detention facilities did not provide detainees with any washing, drying or cleaning areas for clothes. He was forced to wear dirty clothes or if he washed them he had to wear them damp. The bed linen provided by the authorities was unusable, was not adapted to the season and was not changed during the entire time the applicant was detained. Warm water was available twice a week for two hours each time therefore not all detainees could wash. He was unable to shave on a daily basis. The detainees did not have access to a barber, toiletries were not provided by the authorities and he had to purchase the shaving products at his own expense. The food was poor, insufficient and was served in improper hygiene conditions by detainees who did not wear the appropriate equipment for serving food. The cutlery and the plates were rusty and dirty and the cell did not have a table and chairs for detainees to be able to eat their meal. He was taken out of his cell for a walk only twice a week for thirty minutes, between ten or twenty inmates at a time in the prison’s courtyard. The courtyard was covered by metal wires, measured 25 sq. m., was not fitted with bathroom facilities and did not receive any sun light. The applicant was transported to and from the court-house and was quartered in the court-house cells with smokers. B.     Relevant domestic law Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Law no. 275/2006 and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Petrea v.   Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22-23, 29 April 2008), and Bragadireanu v.   Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6   December 2007). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the authorities in the Bacău Police Department’s Arrest and Prison as a result of the material conditions of detention (see “The Facts”, above) and the fact that he was forced to share his cell with smokers in spite of his heart condition. In addition, the prison authorities transported him to the court-house and was quartered in the court-house cells with smokers. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of: a)   the material conditions of his detention and the fact that he was placed in a cell with smokers in the Bacău Police Department’s Arrest and Prison; b) the conditions of detention in the court-house cells and the transport conditions he experienced every time he was taken to the court-house?