THIRD SECTION
Application no. 66630/10
Daniel Claudiu MIHĂILĂ
against Romania
lodged on 3 November 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Daniel Claudiu Mihăilă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and currently in detained in Bucharest-Jilava Prison.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
3. On 20 February 2006 the applicant beat up Mrs C.M.C. who was in his apartment as a guest of his then-wife, and who had tried to intervene in a quarrel between the applicant and his wife.
4. On 15 August 2008 the Prosecutor’s Office to the Bucharest District Court decided not to prosecute.
5. The victim objected and after two hearings which the applicant did not attend, on 13 February 2009 the Criminal Section of the Bucharest District Court decided to open proceedings for battery and other violent offences.
6. The court held eight further hearings on the merits of the complaint, the applicant being present at two only. He sought two postponements in order to prepare his defence or to try to settle the case with the victim. He was absent when the court heard evidence from witnesses for the prosecution, including his wife, and from the victim.
The applicant was present and assisted by counsel at one hearing; he gave a statement before the court and requested that two witnesses for the defence be interviewed; the court accepted to hear one witness who it considered could be useful for the case, but rejected the request to hear the other witness. However, the applicant was absent at the next hearing when the witness appeared in court and his counsel informed the court that they had terminated the contract for the applicant’s representation. The court therefore could not hear the witness. It found that there was no more evidence to be assessed and therefore examined the merits of the case.
The applicant gave no reason for his absence.
7. On 14 December 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of battery and of having threatened the victim, and sentenced him to two and a half years’ detention and to the payment of damages.
8. Meanwhile, on 24 February 2009 the Civil Section of the Bucharest District Court declared the applicant’s divorce from his wife.
9. The applicant appealed. He complained that the District Court had not heard testimony from the witness for the defence and that at the last hearing he had not been present or represented by counsel; he gave no explanations for his absence. He also argued that his former wife’s testimony should not have been taken into account by the court as the relationship between them had always been very bad. He reiterated his request for further evidence.
10. During the appeal proceedings the applicant was in detention pending trial in connection with other criminal proceedings, but was present and represented by counsel at the relevant hearings.
11. In a final decision of 3 May 2010 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the decision rendered by the District Court.
It held that the rules of procedure did not allow for new witness testimony to be submitted before it. The court also considered that the District Court had conducted a thorough and comprehensive examination of the facts in the light of all the evidence in the file. It further noted that the poor relationship between the applicant and his former wife had been well‑known and that the District Court had taken account of it.
B. Applicant’s detention
12. On 29 June 2010 the applicant started serving his sentence in Bucharest Jilava Prison.
13. The applicant describes the conditions of his detention as follows: general overcrowding, he shared a fourteen square metres cell with nineteen inmates in bunk beds having to suffer constant noise caused by the overcrowding. The cell was dirty, the air was stale and there were cockroaches, rats, bedbugs and lice in the cell and in the beds. The hygiene facilities were poor throughout the prison, including in the kitchen and in the toilets where, in addition, there was no privacy. As a result of the building’s poor insulation, it was very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer, when the temperature could reach fifty degrees Celsius. Because of those living conditions, he had lost consciousness several times.
14. The tap water was not drinkable, being filled with microbes and rust from the pipes. The food was of poor quality and cooked with the prison water. In addition there were cockroaches on the canteen tables and the place was infested with mice.
15. The applicant maintained that there was open drug trafficking in prison and that the drug users were attacking him, stealing his clothes and abusing him in order to get money for drugs. He did not report the abuse, as his attackers had threatened to kill him if he did.
16. The applicant stated that after the first six months of his detention, he was deprived of sleep, food and water, had lost his teeth and weight and had become depressed.
COMPLAINTS
17. Relying on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison.
18. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 and 2 of the Convention that he was tried in his absence and that the defence requests were dismissed by the courts which chose to ignore the evidence in his favour. He also contends that the judges were biased and breached his right to the presumption of innocence in accepting as evidence his former wife’s statements despite the exceptionally bad relationship between them.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Were the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison, during the applicant’s stay, in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide information on the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular, concerning: the size and occupancy of the cells in which the applicant has been held; their state of cleanliness and facilities and the quality of food and water.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy