CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 2 April 2014 and 30 September 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60450/13 A.C. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 September 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The additional facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows. After the communication of the case, on 24 June 2014 the prison doctor, D.T., advised the applicant to withdraw his application or to expect his detention conditions in prison no. 11 to deteriorate. On 27 June 2014 the applicant was threatened by the prison guardian, F.D., while in the guardian’s office, that his detention conditions would deteriorate if he refused to withdraw his application. The applicant refused to comply and subsequently noticed that certain food items were missing from the food parcel sent by his family (potatoes and green beans). Confronting F.D. about the missing food items, the applicant was informed that the restrictions would continue until he withdrew his application from the Court and that more restrictions would follow. At unspecified dates in July 2014 the applicant’s cell was searched and his cooking plate was seized, although he possessed and used it with the written approval of the prison administration. On 12   August   2014, internal security officer R. explained the applicant that he was not entitled to receive food items which needed additional cooking, not to have a cooking plate and that soon he was to be transferred to another prison where his life would be unbearable. He was also explained that all restrictions and hardships would cease if he were to withdraw his application from the Court. On 22 August 2012 the applicant’s partner, A.Z., stated in a written declaration certified by the applicant’s lawyer, that since June 2014 she and her sister were prohibited by the prison administration to give the applicant any food items which required additional cooking although before that date there had been no restrictions in this respect. On 21 and 22 August 2014 the applicant complained about the events described above to the Ministry of Justice and to the Bălți prosecutor’s office. He argued that given the scarcity of food and his state of health, the restrictions on food items seriously affected him and subjected him to additional suffering. It is unclear if he obtained a reply. On 25, 28 and 29 August 2014 and on 4 September 2014 the applicant’s cell was searched. On 15 September 2014 the applicant learned that he was about to be transferred to prison no. 18 the night from 15 to 16 September 2014. According to the applicant, he had previously served a custodial sentence in that prison, during which he had had conflicts with other inmates, had sought protection for his safety and had been provided with such protection by the prison administration by being transferred to a special cell. He submitted that the inmates whom he had conflicts with continued to be detained in prison no. 18 and his transfer to that prison would amount to a punishment for having lodged an application with the Court. To prevent the transfer, the applicant cut his hands and legs. He had not been transferred to any other prison to date. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 34 about being subjected to pressure on the part of the prison administration to withdraw his application lodged with the Court. QUESTION 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?