CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17405/17 Johnny KUNZE against Romania lodged on 23 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the automatic prohibition of the applicant’s right to vote imposed as an additional sentence following his criminal conviction (decision no. 350/PI of 31 May 2006 of the Timiş County Court, upheld by the final decision no. 1210 of 2 April 2008 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice). The applicant, who served his sentence from 18   January 2014 to 17 August 2017, was unable to vote in the parliamentary elections of 2016. The case also concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Arad and Timişoara prisons during the same period. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention and on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the personal space available in the cell, the time allowed outside the cell and the sanitary conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see, notably, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania , nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, §§   75-77 and 82 ‑ 89, 25 April 2017)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to vote in free elections which have ensured the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature (see, notably, Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 84-85, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX, Calmanovici v. Romania , no.   42250/02, § 153, 1 July 2008, and Cucu v. Romania , no. 22362/06, §§   109-12, 13 November 2012)?