THIRD SECTION
Application no. 19730/10
Daniel TOMA BARBU
against Romania
lodged on 10 December 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Daniel Toma Barbu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bucharest. His application was lodged before the Court on 10 December 2009.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
By a final judgment of 22 October 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of attempted aggravated theft and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment on the basis of documentary and testimonial evidence.
On 23 February 2009 the applicant was detained in Rahova Prison, although according to him he was suffering from a serious heart condition.
From 3 to 7 April 2009 the Cardiology Department of the Bucharest University Hospital produced a report on the applicant’s medical condition. The report concluded that the applicant was suffering, inter alia, from ulcer, hepatitis C and a serious heart condition requiring surgery in a military hospital. It also recommended that the applicant be treated daily with a number of medicines such as Plavix, Aspenter, Concor, Cordarone, Prestarium, Olicard, Preductal, Soris and Omez and be provided with an adequate diet.
On 12 May 2009 the applicant underwent open heart surgery at an unspecified civilian hospital. According to him, both before and after the surgery he was constantly guarded and was handcuffed to the bed. He could see his wife only for a few minutes, but his children were not allowed to visit him and he was not allowed to speak to other people in the hospital room.
By a final judgment of 19 May 2009 the Bucharest District Court allowed the applicant’s action seeking the discontinuance of his prison sentence on medical grounds and ordered his release for two months and fifteen days.
On 20 May 2009 the applicant was discharged from the hospital following his open heart surgery and taken to Jilava Prison.
On 1 June 2009, following the judgment of 19 May 2009, he was released from prison into the care of his family. According to him his family committed him to the Floreasca Hospital where he had several operations to save one of his necrotic legs.
On 16 July 2009 the applicant brought proceedings before the Bucharest District Court seeking to extend on medical grounds the discontinuance of his prison sentence ordered on 19 May 2009.
On 16 August 2009 the applicant returned to prison. He did not provide, however, further details as to whether he was re‑imprisoned in Jilava or Rahova Prison.
On 18 August 2009 the Bucharest District Court ordered the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute to carry out a medical expert report in respect of the applicant’s medical condition.
In his letter of 10 December 2009 the applicant stated to the Court that following his return to prison on 16 August 2009 the authorities had failed to provide the applicant with adequate medical care and the medicines required for his medical condition, because of lack of funds. Consequently, his mother had to purchase the medicines for him. Moreover, he had to share a room with fourteen other detainees. Some of the detainees were smokers, although his medical condition prohibited the applicant from being an active or passive smoker. The temperature in the room was very low and the detainees were forced to fill the cracks in the windows with their own clothing. The bed linen was infested with bedbugs and the applicant developed a severe rash from the insect bites. Furthermore, he was forced to sleep with the light on at night and to live in poor hygiene conditions. In addition, the food was poor and he was not provided with a diet adequate for his medical condition.
On 22 January 2010 the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute carried out the medical expert report ordered by the Bucharest District Court on 18 August 2009. It concluded that the applicant’s condition had worsened and he required further heart surgery, which could only be carried out in a civilian hospital. Consequently, it recommended that the applicant’s detention be stayed for two months.
By a final judgment of 5 February 2010 the Bucharest District Court allowed the applicant’s action of 16 July 2009 seeking the discontinuance of his prison sentence and ordered his release for two months and fifteen days.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the conditions of detention in Jilava and Rahova Prisons were inappropriate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, the authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical care and the medicines required for his medical condition because of lack of funds. Moreover, he had to share a room with fourteen other detainees. Some of the detainees were smokers, although his medical condition prohibited the applicant from being an active or passive smoker. Furthermore, the temperature in the room was very low and the detainees were forced to fill the cracks in the windows with their own clothing. The bed linen was infested with bedbugs and the applicant developed a severe rash from the insect bites. In addition, he was forced to sleep with the light on at night and to live in a place with poor hygiene. Lastly, the food was poor and he was not provided with a diet which was adequate for his medical condition.
2. Invoking in substance the same Article of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was ill‑treated by the prison guards in that he was handcuffed to his hospital bed the entire time he was hospitalised for his open heart surgery.
3. Relying in substance on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains of a breach of his right to private and family life in so far as he had limited contact with his wife and was not allowed by the prison guards to see his children or to speak to the other individuals in the room while he was hospitalised for his open heart surgery.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention after 16 August 2009, on account of the material conditions of detention, lack of adequate medical care and due to him being placed in a cell with smokers in Jilava and Rahova Prisons?
2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in connection with his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention?
3. In particular, was Law no. 275/2006 an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaints concerning the material conditions of detention, lack of adequate medical care on account of lack of funding and being placed in a cell with smokers?
4. The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Jilava and Rahova Prisons after 16 August 2009, more specifically with regard to the applicant’s allegations of overcrowding, poor hygiene, bug infestation, lack of diet for his medical condition and poor food, lack of warmth in the rooms, being forced to share his cell with smokers and to sleep with the light on at night, and lack of adequate medical care on account of lack of funds.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy