European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 33003/11
Florin NECULA
against Romania
lodged on 12 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Florin Necula, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970. He is detained in Margineni Prison since 2009.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

By a judgment of 1 September 2011 the Moreni County Court dismissed the applicant’s action against the Margineni Prison authorities seeking a court order to have the classification “highly dangerous detainee” removed from his personal file. It held that though the applicant was not classified as a highly dangerous detainee anymore, the records in his personal file concerned a past reality which could not be altered and there were no legal grounds that allowed the removal of the said record from his file.

On an unspecified date, by relying on Law no. 275/2006, the applicant brought proceedings against the Margineni Prison authorities and contended that his rights to adequate medical assistance, to correspondence, to working and educational activities, as well as his rights of access to running water and adequate detention conditions had been breached. He argued that he had to share a cell with twenty other inmates, that he was involved in activities only once a week, was not provided with adequate medical care and was not given the correct food diet, that the sanitary facilities were out of order, the prison lacked running water, his cell was squalid and lacked air, that his right of correspondence was restricted and that he was not allowed to work.

By a decision of 5 September 2011 the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to Margineni Prison dismissed the applicant’s action. It held on the basis of the information provided by the prison authorities that the size of the prison did not allow the reduction of the number of detainees per cell and that the applicant’s cell allowed six cubic meters of air for each detainee. Moreover, he had access to daily activities and exercise and was provided with adequate medical care in the prison’s hospital. His cell was disinfected in August 2011 and no insects were found at the sanitary inspection in September 2011. Furthermore, the applicant was provided with a food diet. The quality of the food was verified daily and there was no indication that it was improper. In addition, the applicant’s cell was equipped with private and hygienic sanitary facilities which allow permanent access to running water. Also the applicant’s right to correspondence was observed. Lastly, his request to be allowed to work was not examined by the work commission on the ground that he did not meet the work relate requirements. The applicant appealed against the decision before domestic courts.

By a final judgment of 14 December 2011 the Moreni District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 5 September 2011 as ill-founded.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Margineni Prison authorities seeking an injunction to be allowed to receive food from his family.

By a decision of 10 January 2012 the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to Margineni Prison allowed the applicant’s action seeking to be allowed to receive food from his family. There is no evidence in the file that either the applicant or the prison authorities appealed against the decision.

According to the information provided by the applicant the detainees in Margineni Prison had to sleep on metal beds with large holes in them, the cells lacked natural light and air, were squalid, infested with lice, bed bugs, were damp and lacked proper facilities for serving food. The sanitary facilities lacked air vents and running water, did not have doors and mirrors, while the trash bins were made out of cut plastic containers.

The applicant attached to his letter several photos allegedly taken by him in prison that support his statements.

The applicant also contended that the food was poor and that he did not have access to adequate medical care.

B.  Relevant domestic law

Article 38 of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences provides for an appeal to be lodged with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, who has the powers described in Article 3 § 5 of Ordinance no. 56/2003 and whose decision can be appealed against to a court. The law provides that sentences should be executed in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity and that each detainee should be provided with his own bed, that cells should have natural light, that detainees should wear civilian clothes during the execution of their sentences and that if they do not have any, these should be provided free by the prison authorities. One or more judges are delegated by the local court of appeal to supervise the observance of the rights guaranteed by the law and he (they) examine(s) the complaints of detainees.

C.  Relevant reports

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has not visited the Margineni Prison.

The relevant extracts from the report of the Romanian Helsinki Committee (RHC), concerning its visit of 29 March 2006, reads as follows:

“(...)

To date, no action has been taken to solve the problem of the water supply which was highlighted in 2002 ...

...

Despite the fact that according to the prison records the food seemed to meet the standards, many inmates refused their meals that day. Many food containers remained untouched and others were left half empty. .. RHC maintains its opinion that despite some improvement, the food is far from meeting the standards of healthy nutrition – all the meals consisted of boiled vegetables, potatoes or bean soup with small pieces of animal fat and rarely contained any meat...

There was a bad smell in the refrigeration room ... The RHC recommended that the room be cleaned (...).

...

The ceiling was covered in mould above the lavatory, which was separated from the room by a plastic curtain (...) The lack of separation between room and lavatory and the small amount of space per detainee may be considered as degrading treatment and recommends that a solution should be found.”

COMPLAINTS

1.  Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the conditions of detention in Margineni Prison were inappropriate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment owing to use of metal beds, poor hygiene conditions, pest infestations (lice and bed bugs), lack of facilities for serving food, poor food quality, damp cells, lack of adequate sanitary facilities, lack of air and running water and lack of adequate medical care.

2.  Invoking in substance Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains of an alleged interference with his right of correspondence by the Margineni Prison authorities.

3.  Relying in substance on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention the applicant complains that he was allegedly punished several times for the same unlawful act.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the material conditions of detention in Margineni Prison?

2.  The Government are invited to submit information concerning the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in Margineni Prison, more specifically with regard to the applicant’s allegations of use of metal beds, damp cells, poor hygiene conditions, pest infestations, poor food quality, lack of adequate facilities for serving food, lack of access to water, lack of light and air in the cells and lack of adequate sanitary facilities.