7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Oradea. 8.  On 28 November 2005 the applicant was placed in the custody of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bihor County Court, accused of receiving a bribe while working as a sub-officer at the Romanian border with Hungary. 9.  On 29 November 2005 the prosecutor ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody for fifteen days. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre‑trial detention was periodically extended by the Bihor County Court until 1 August 2006, when the applicant was released from prison. 10.  The applicant was detained on the premises of the Bihor Investigation Service detention facility (Arestul Preventiv al Inspectoratului de Poliţie Bihor) between 28 November 2005 and 31 January 2006. 11.  On 31 January 2006, the applicant was transferred to Oradea Maximum Security Prison, where he was detained until 1 August 2006. 12.  The applicant complained about the conditions of detention on the premises of the Bihor Investigation Service detention facility. He claimed that he shared a cell with five other detainees and that the toilet was in the middle of the cell, offering no privacy. 13.  The cell also had no source of natural light, but was lit only by artificial light. 14.  The applicant also alleged that the cell was not heated even when the outside temperature reached minus twenty degrees and that hot water was only available for ten minutes per week for all six detainees. 15.  Furthermore, the applicant, a non-smoker, was detained with inmates who smoked cigarettes all day long inside the cell. He claimed that his health had worsened because of the conditions in which he had been kept. Thus, his ulcer had worsened and, although he had had no previous history of asthma, in a medical report of 6 January 2006, it was recorded that he was now suffering from asthma and bronchial hyperactivity. 16.  He also claimed that there had been no television or any other source of information at the detention centre. 17.  The opportunity to exercise outside was limited to one ten–minute walk per day, in a twelve‑square‑metre space, with the other five detainees. Furthermore, he contended that he was not permitted to exercise outside at all for the period between 23 December 2005 and 6 January 2006. 18.  The applicant contended that he had had no visits from or telephone conversations with his family until 27 December 2005. On 21 December 2005 the applicant wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office in this respect and only then were visits permitted. 19.  The Government provided official information, submitted by the prison authorities, concerning the facilities of the cell that the applicant had occupied during his detention. 20.  He stayed in a cell that accommodated five other detainees, each having his own bed. However, the Government did not state what the area of the cell was. 21.  The cell had a loudspeaker allowing the detainees to listen to the radio. The toilet and a basin were installed in a corner of the cell. The applicant was allowed at least thirty minutes of outdoor exercise per day, with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays. Bathing was once a week for thirty minutes. The temperature in the cell was adequate, as the cell was connected to the city heating network. Natural light and ventilation were provided by two windows.