CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     THIRD SECTION Application no. 59042/10 Constantin NEAGU against Romania lodged on 28 September 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Constantin Neagu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     In 2002 the applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 18   years’ imprisonment. He served his sentence in Giurgiu Prison until 6   August 2012, when he was transferred to Poarta Alba Prison. He was released   on   25 January 2013. 4.     On 18 February 2009 the applicant underwent surgery in a civil hospital for lumbar disc herniation. On 19 February 2009 he was released from hospital with the following recommendations: to undergo a course of kinetotherapy, to avoid lifting heavy objects and any physical effort, and to be assigned an accompanying person to provide him with daily assistance ( însoţitor ) for a period of thirty to forty-five days. 5.     At a post-operative examination on 5 May 2009 the applicant’s doctor prescribed him several painkillers and again advised him to undergo a course of kinetotherapy, be assigned an accompanying person to provide him with daily assistance for an unlimited period, and to use an ambulance for transport. 6.     From 11 to 25 March 2010 the applicant was admitted to a civil hospital and examined by a neurosurgeon, who again prescribed him painkillers and recommended that he be assigned a person to provide him with daily assistance and be provided with a wheelchair. 7.     The above recommendations were renewed on the occasion of a medical examination conducted on 13 May 2010. 8.     On 1 June 2010 the applicant was taken to a civil hospital, where he was examined by a neurosurgeon. He was diagnosed with recurrent disc herniation and gonarthrosis. The doctor prescribed a series of painkillers and anti-inflammatory medication and recommended further surgery in a civil hospital. 9.     The applicant alleged that none of the doctors’ recommendations were followed by the prison authorities. In addition, although he made frequent requests, he was never taken to a civil hospital in order to have the further surgery. 10.     In letters dated 21 February 2011 and 4 January 2013 the applicant informed the Court that he had complained about the prison authorities’ inaction on numerous occasions to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, but in Giurgiu Prison there was a practice of not registering such complaints. In any event, he claimed he had not received any response. He also alleged that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with copies of his complaints or any other relevant documents. 11.     The applicant also complained that the prison authorities had failed to respect the medical recommendations to the Medical Service of the National Prisons Administration, replying on 29 April 2010, as follows: “In accordance with Order no. 2432/15.06.2000 of the National Prisons Administration, the right to an accompanying person is granted to prisoners with disabling illnesses classified as first-degree invalidity, a classification established by a commission consisting of: the director of the prison, the head doctor and the person responsible for occupational health and safety.” 12.     In his application form of 1 November 2010, the applicant alleged that he had followed the procedure set out in the letter of 29 April 2010 from the Medical Service, but that the commission established in Giurgiu Prison had always rejected his requests for an accompanying person. 13.     The applicant also filed several requests with the domestic courts for the suspension of his sentence for the period of time necessary for him to undergo surgery at his own expense in a civil hospital. His latest request had been rejected by the Bucharest County Court on 9 November 2010 with the reasoning that the surgery could be performed in a civil hospital under supervision and therefore it was not necessary to suspend the serving of the applicant’s prison sentence. 14.     The applicant alleged that when he was taken to court hearings or to hospital he did not have the benefit of a wheelchair or an accompanying person and he was never transported by ambulance as recommended by his doctors. He also alleged that the prison authorities’ failure to provide him with the treatment prescribed by his doctors, coupled with the overall poor conditions of detention, had led to the deterioration of his state of health and caused his illness to recur. B.     Relevant domestic law 15.     The relevant provisions of Law no. 275 of 2006 on the execution of sentences setting forth the remedies available to convicted persons with respect to the measures taken by the prison authorities to implement their rights are summarised in Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22 and 23, 29   April 2008). COMPLAINT 16.     The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 14 of the Convention that the Giurgiu Prison authorities failed to respect his doctors’ recommendations to provide him with an accompanying person and a wheelchair, and to ensure his transportation by ambulance. He considers that these failures, together with the poor conditions of detention, caused his illness to recur. In addition, he alleges that it was torture for him to walk or sit and he felt humiliated by his weakness and the lack of any help from the prison authorities, coupled with the lack of any response to his numerous complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicant’s detention in the Giurgiu Prison amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account the following elements:   -     the nature and the progress of the applicant’s illness and the specific medical treatment recommended; -   the relevant doctors’ recommendations that the applicant should be provided with an accompanying person, and a wheelchair and be transported by ambulance; -     the overall conditions of the applicant’s detention?   The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Giurgiu Prison, with particular reference to the alleged lack of adequate compliance with his doctors’ recommendations by the prison authorities.