Communicated on 10 July 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 50109/13
Mihai MACOVEI
against Romania
lodged on 15 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Mihai Macovei, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1958 and is currently detained in Aiud Prison.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant is serving a twenty-year imprisonment sentence in Aiud Prison. Starting from 2 July 2010 until present, he had been transferred to Târgu Mureş Prison for periods ranging from one day to seven days, almost every month. During his stays in Târgu Mureş Prison the applicant was held in cells with very poor hygiene, with mould on the walls, bugs and damaged mattresses.
4. In addition, the applicant, who holds several medical documents attesting that he is not a smoker, had to share the cell with prisoners who smoke every time he was transferred to Târgu Mureş Prison. In this respect the applicant submitted a medical certificate issued on 31 July 2012 when he was diagnosed with type II diabetes.
5. On 23 January 2013, while he was in Târgu Mureş Prison, the applicant filed a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. The applicant complained of the poor hygiene of the cell, the presence of bugs, the damaged mattresses and the fact that his health had deteriorated because of his exposure to passive smoking. He alleged that his numerous complaints in these respect were constantly overlooked by the prison administration and requested an on-site visit in his cell in order to verify his allegations. On 24 January 2014 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences visited the cell occupied by the applicant. In a report drafted on that date the judge confirmed the presence of insects, the fact that the mattresses were damaged and a lack of hygiene. The judge also collected statements from the applicant’s cell mates. M.S. stated that he was smoking in the cell and that the administration did not inform him that the cell was non-smoking. P.P.P confirmed the fact that inmates were smoking in the cell and that the administration did not take any action following the applicant’s complaints in this respect.
6. On 21 February 2013 the applicant again complained to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in Târgu Mureş Prison stating that he continued to be held with smokers and his health had worsened for that reason. The same day the judge visited again the applicant’s cell and mentioned that there was a smell of smoke and there was no sign mentioning that smoking was not allowed. In addition, the judge found that the toilets had no window.
7. On 24 April 2013 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in Târgu Mureş Prison rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention considering that the prison administration did not breach any legal provision. The applicant’s complaint concerning passive smoking was also rejected since the prison administration could not be held responsible for the actions of the prisoners sharing the cell with the applicant.
8. On 21 June 2013 the applicant’s complaint against the above‑mentioned decision was allowed by the Târgu Mureş District Court. The court took note of the fact that the applicant’s right to adequate conditions of detention had been breached with respect to the lack of hygiene and the exposure to passive smoking. The court also noted that the internal regulations of Târgu Mureş Prison did not provide for the separation of smokers from non-smokers or for the creation of non-smoking cells. However, no obligation was set on behalf of the Târgu Mureş prison administration.
9. On 21 October 2013 the applicant was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease. On 3 December 2013 the applicant was diagnosed with pneumonia and chronic bronchitis. According to a medical certificate issued on 18 February 2014, the applicant was still suffering from chronic bronchitis.
10. The applicant continued to be held in the same above-described conditions whenever he was transferred to Târgu Mureş Prison.
COMPLAINT
11. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of his detention in Târgu Mureş Prison, namely the lack of hygiene and the exposure to passive smoking which had deteriorated his state of health.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the conditions of his detention in Târgu Mureş Prison?
The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant’ s detention in Târgu Mureş Prison, in particular as regards the hygiene and his exposure to passive smoking.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy