European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 17295/10
by Nicolae Augustin RADULESCU
against Romania
lodged on 15 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nicolae Augustin Radulescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest.

A.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant

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

On 26 November 2007 the applicant was convicted of several counts of fraud by the Bucharest District Court and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 29 September 2008 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, following unsuccessful appeals by the applicant. By a final decision of 29 January 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed his subsequent request for revision of the previous decisions as ill-founded.

On 2 July 2008 the Bucharest District Court convicted the applicant of other acts of fraud and gave him a suspended sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment. On 8 May 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant and sent the case back to the Bucharest County Court for re-examination of the appeal. The applicant did not provide further information on these proceedings.

On 2 July 2009 the Bucharest District Court found the applicant guilty of additional acts of fraud. It then combined (contopirea pedepselor) the sentence of 26 November 2007 with that given for the applicant’s most recent conviction for fraud and reached a final sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 18 May 2010 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, following unsuccessful appeals by the applicant.

B.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention

On 30 September 2008 the applicant started serving his sentence in Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons, apparently being transferred several times between these two prisons. It appears that from 8 November 2008 he was held in Giurgiu Prison, but from at least 17 January 2009 to 16 July 2010 he was detained in Jilava Prison.

He describes the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison as follows: general overcrowding, the applicant having shared a twenty sq. m cell with seventeen to eighteen inmates; poor hygiene that is inadequate for his state of health; and no hot or cold running water.

Between 12 November 2008 and 8 April 2009, the applicant was examined by an expert medical panel and diagnosed with morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, psoriasis and lumbar spondylosis. In a report drafted in May 2009, the expert commission concluded that the applicant’s obesity had to be treated in a specialised civilian hospital where he could be taken under escort, but that the other conditions were treatable in prison hospitals.

In letters to various domestic courts, to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (the “CPT”) and to the Court, the applicant described an incident that occurred in January 2009 in Jilava Prison where he was handcuffed and chained to his bed for three days and transported in this manner to the prison hospital and back. The prison doctor saw him on the third day but allegedly refused to report the incident.

From 16 to 26 February 2009 the applicant was hospitalised in Bucharest Prison Hospital for an operation and recuperation.

The applicant requested that his sentence be interrupted for health reasons. By a decision of 10 March 2010, based on the expert report drafted in May 2009, the Bucharest District Court denied his request and ordered the Prisons Administration to ensure that the applicant was hospitalised in a civilian hospital, if he so wished, for the treatment necessary for his obesity. It ordered that constant surveillance be put in place during the applicant’s hospitalisation.

C.  Complaints under Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences

During his detention, the applicant lodged several petitions with the prison authorities, complaining about various aspects of his detention. The prison authorities rejected his complaints. The applicant subsequently challenged the authorities’ rejections before the courts.

While in Giurgiu Prison, he complained of an alleged lack of medical care, the poor quality of food and infringement of his right to correspondence (the complaint was dismissed by Giurgiu District Court on 27 October 2009). On 3 August 2009 and 12 April 2010 the Giurgiu District Court dismissed motions lodged by the applicant seeking the withdrawal of the judges hearing his case, as it considered that they did not fall within any of the categories prescribed by law that would call their impartiality into question.

As far as prison conditions in Jilava are concerned, the applicant’s complaints before the domestic courts referred mainly to: alleged interference with his right to confidentiality when receiving visitors; the right to attend religious services (the complaint was dismissed by the Bucharest District Court on 11 June 2007); and the right to be provided with envelopes and stamps for his correspondence with the domestic authorities (the complaint was allowed by the Bucharest District Court on 26 March 2007).

In January 2009 the applicant asked to be taken to Jilava Prison Hospital for treatment. His request was refused. It was alleged that as a result of this, one evening he attacked wardens, shouted vulgar abuse and broke a window. He was sanctioned with withdrawal of the right to receive parcels for a month. He challenged the sanction and by a decision of 17 June 2009 the Bucharest District Court annulled the sanction.

A similar sanction was imposed on the applicant following an incident that he allegedly provoked on 19 January 2009 when he became violent, smashed a telephone receiver and threatened the wardens who intervened with violence. This sanction was also annulled by the district court on 17 June 2009.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. In particular, he complains of the overcrowding of cells, of the fact that the facilities are not adequate for his state of health and that, by refusing to release him for medical reasons, the courts in effect punished him, as he was taken to hospital handcuffed and chained.

2.  Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was tried and convicted three times for the same offence. Further relying on Article 6, he complains that the Giurgiu District Court lacked impartiality, as it refused to order the judges to withdraw from the case.

3.  Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the prison authorities interfered with his right to receive correspondence.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Are the conditions of detention in Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide information on the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons, in particular, concerning: the size and occupancy of the cells in which the applicant has been held; the facilities and medical care available; and the adequacy of the detention facilities for the applicant’s state of health.