THIRD SECTION
Application no. 49549/11
Silvestru COTLEŢ
against Romania
lodged on 29 July 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Silvestru Cotlet, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Gura-Humorului. On 6 January 2012 he was released from prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
By a judgment of 1 April 2011, the Gura Humorului District Court convicted the applicant for refusal to take the test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment under probation. The court held that on 22 November 2009 the applicant was stopped while driving his car in a random police search to ensure that his papers were in order. As the police officers felt that the applicant had a strong smell of alcohol they invited him to immediately take a test in order to determine his breath alcohol content. The test was taken in the presence of a witness. As the test showed that the applicant had 65 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, he was invited for further testing to the closest hospital. At the hospital the applicant refused to take any other test. The applicant and the prosecutor’s office appealed.
On 6 July 2011 the Suceava Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office. It ruled that the applicant had to serve his sentence in prison.
2. Conditions of detention in Botoşani Prison
The applicant started his detention in Botoşani Prison on 6 July 2011. On 9 September 2011 he was transferred to Timişoara Prison.
In Botoşani Prison he was detained in cell no. 80 which was overcrowded. However, the applicant did not mention the number of detainees in the cell and the surface of the cell. He just claims that there were three tiers of bunk beds in the cell.
He also alleges that the cell was full of bugs. He sent an envelope with bugs to the Court in order to prove his allegations.
The water was running for a few hours per day; therefore, the detainees had to collect water for drinking and the toilets.
He claims that the quality of food was poor.
According to the applicant, the prison had no place specially designed for eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in Botoşani Prison.
2. Under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention he raises several complaints about the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him, his defence right and the presumption of innocence.
QUESTION
Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Botoşani Prison in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations regarding the overcrowding, hygiene conditions and poor quality of food?
The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the size of the respective cells; the number of the detainees in the respective cells at the time the applicant was detained and the facilities available.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy