CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 73420/12 Mihaly DEME against Romania lodged on 18 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Mihaly Deme, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Codlea Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 23 August 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of the prison sentences in Codlea Prison. Relying on Article 50 of Law no. 275/2006 he claimed that he had not received the medical treatment prescribed for his hepatitis. By an interlocutory judgment of 31 August 2012, the judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. The applicant challenged the interlocutory judgment. On 16   November   2012 the Brașov District Court allowed the complaint holding that the Codlea Prison authorities had not observed their obligation to provide him with the medical treatment he needed for hepatitis and ordered that the medical treatment prescribed by the specialist be given to him. According to the applicant the decision of 16   November   2012 remained unenforced as he did not receive any medical treatment for his hepatitis. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Law no. 275/2006 The relevant provisions of Law no. 275/2006 read, as follows: Article 3 “The execution of sentences should ensure respect for human dignity.” Article 50 – The right to medical assistance “1.     The right of detained persons to medical assistance is guaranteed. 2.     Medical assistance is provided free of charge, whenever necessary or upon request, by qualified personnel, as provided by law. 3.     Detained persons benefit from free medical assistance and medicine.” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the alleged infringement of his right to medical assistance during his detention. 2.     Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the non-enforcement of the final decision of 16   November   2012. QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the alleged lack of medical treatment in Codlea Prison? Has the applicant received the medical treatment as ordered by the final judgment of 16   November   2012?