CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .s4CADCC17 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; 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 } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 41587/11 Andrei MOLDOVAN against Romania lodged on 23 June 2011   STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Mr Andrei Moldovan, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Oradea. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.S. Kolozsi, a lawyer practicing in Oradea. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The proceedings against the applicant and the execution of his sentence 3.     Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 19   September 2001 when he was placed in police custody. By a final decision of 14 October 2010 (notified on 26 January 2011) the Timișoara Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of malfeasance in public office and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. 4.     The applicant served a part of his sentence in the Oradea Penitentiary (from 26   January 2011 to 18 April 2011 and from 22 May 2012 to 31   October 2012) and the rest of the sentence in the Satu-Mare Penitentiary (from 18 April 2011 to 22 May 2012). 5.     On 31 October 2012 the applicant was released on parole due to having reached the age of 60 years old. 2.     The material conditions in Satu-Mare and Oradea penitentiaries 6.     The applicant states that the material conditions of detention in the Satu ‑ Mare Penitentiary were inhuman and degrading. Namely, he complains that: (i) during autumn and winter the cells were poorly heated, the heating system being shut down during the night, thus the temperature in the cells reaching 1-2 C o ; furthermore, his request for an extra blanket was refused; (ii) the food was of poor quality and in limited quantity; (iii) he did not enjoy enough out-of-cell time, being allowed to spend only one hour per day in a covered room of approximately 4 to   6 square meters, on the first floor, despite the fact that he was detained under a semi-open regime; (iv)   access to communal showers with hot water was allowed only once a week. He also complains about the limited access to communal showers with respect to the conditions in the Oradea Penitentiary. 3.     The conditions of transport 7.     While referring in general to several occasions on unspecified dates and in particular to the intervals of 22 ‑ 26 December 2011 and 9 ‑ 11   January   2012, the applicant states that he was transported in inhuman conditions between the penitentiaries and the national courts or the hospital units (very long hours of travel, from the early morning till late at night). During the several days of transport he was provided with insufficient and inadequate food for his health situation (cold food including products containing sugar and animal fat), the applicant suffering from type II sugar diabetes. COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Satu-Mare and Oradea penitentiaries and during the transfers between the penitentiaries and the national courts or hospital units. 9.     By invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him lasted for more than 9 years, delay he deems to be unreasonable. QUESTIONS   1.     Has the applicant been subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment in the Satu-Mare and Oradea penitentiaries and during transportation between these and national courts or hospital units?   The Government are invited to provide information on the applicant’s detention conditions in the Satu-Mare and Oradea penitentiaries, in particular in connection with the heating conditions in the cells where the applicant has been detained, the provision of blankets during cold nights, the sanitary facilities available and the conditions of access thereto, the out ‑ of-cell facilities and activities, the quality and quantity of food served to the applicant and the conditions of transport between the penitentiaries and the national courts or the hospital units.   2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?