5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  The applicant was convicted of several counts of fraud, by three successive convictions in the Bucharest District Court on 26 November 2007 (upheld on 29 September 2008 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal), 2 July 2008 and 2 July 2009 (upheld on 18 May 2010 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal). In the latter hearing, the District Court also combined (contopirea pedepselor) the sentence of 26 November 2007 with that given for the applicant’s most recent conviction for fraud, and reached a resulting sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
No further information was provided to the Court concerning the decision of 2 July 2008. 7.  On 30 September 2008 the applicant started serving his sentence. He was released from prison on 3 November 2010. 8.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison. There was a general problem of overcrowding and he had to share a 20 sq. m cell with between seventeen and eighteen inmates. Hygiene conditions were poor and inadequate for detainees in his state of health. There was no hot or cold running water. 9.  From 12 November 2008 to 8 April 2009 the applicant was examined by an expert medical panel and diagnosed as morbidly obese with type 2 diabetes. It was also established that he suffered from hypertension, psoriasis and lumbar spondylosis. In a report drafted in May 2009, the expert panel concluded that the applicant’s obesity had to be treated in a specialist civilian hospital where he could be taken under escort, but that his other conditions were treatable in prison hospitals. 10.  From 17 to 19 January 2009 the applicant was placed in a small cell on his own, where he was continuously kept naked and tied to a bed, without any way of going to the toilet. He was also transported to and from the prison hospital chained to a food cart. According to the applicant, the prison doctor who saw him on the third day refused to report the incident (see paragraph 21 below). 11.  From 16 to 26 February 2009 the applicant was hospitalised in Bucharest Prison Hospital for surgery and post-operative care. 12.  The applicant requested that his sentence be suspended on medical grounds. By a decision of 10 March 2010, the Bucharest District Court denied that request based on the medical report drafted in May 2009, and ordered the prison administration to transfer the applicant, if he consented, to a civilian hospital to undergo the treatment necessary for his obesity. It ordered that round-the-clock surveillance be put in place during the applicant’s hospitalisation. 13.  The applicant was scheduled for surgery in a civilian hospital, but on 28 May 2010 he refused to undergo the operation. 14.  According to the official prison records, the applicant was transferred nineteen times during his detention between Jilava Prison and the prison hospitals of Jilava and Rahova. He served about thirteen months of his detention in eight different cells in Jilava Prison. The cells he was placed in measured around 43 sq. m and contained eighteen to twenty-one beds, and most of the time they were below full capacity. For about two months, he had about 4 sq. m of personal space in these cells. The rest of the time, he had between 2.11 and 3.41 sq. m of personal space. He also spent a few days on his own in two-bed cells measuring between 6.53 and 6.7 sq. m. 15.  As the applicant was assigned to a semi-open regime (regim semi‑deschis), cell doors were left open except when food was served, and he had daily access to the courtyard between 8 and 11 a.m. and again between 1 and 5 p.m. Cells could be aired by opening the windows. The applicant had unrestricted access to the toilet, which was completely separated from the cell living space by a door. There was central heating throughout the prison. Detainees had access to showers twice per week; the shower rooms had even been renovated in 2009. 16.  The quality of water was tested periodically and that of food daily. The results were satisfactory. 17.  Hygiene and pest control were performed by specialist companies. Toilets were disinfected daily and cells whenever necessary. 18.   Prisoners’ clothes were washed weekly upon request. 19.  Relying mainly on Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences, the applicant lodged several complaints with the prison authorities or the judge delegated by the court to supervise the observance of prisoners’ rights (“the delegate judge”), concerning various aspects of his detention. 20.  His complaints lodged with the delegate judge referred mainly to an interference with his right to confidentiality when receiving visitors; his right to attend religious services (although that complaint was dismissed by the Bucharest District Court on 11 June 2007); and his right to be provided with envelopes and stamps for his correspondence with the domestic authorities (which was allowed by the Bucharest District Court on 26 March 2007). 21.  On 17 January 2009 the applicant became violent while waiting for a visitor. He destroyed a telephone post and shouted abuse at the guards who tried to calm him down. The prison decided to withdraw his right to receive parcels for a month. He challenged that measure, but on 30 April 2009 the delegate judge upheld it. He appealed, and in a final decision of 17 June 2009 the Bucharest District Court cancelled the measure. 22.  He also provided details of the alleged ill‑treatment of 17 January 2009 in a letter that was forwarded to the National Prison Administration (“the ANP”) by the Independent Romanian Society for Human Rights. 23.  On 27 March 2009 the director of Jilava Prison responded to the ANP, informing it that on the day in question the applicant had exhibited violent behaviour and had to be moved to a different cell on his own and immobilised to the bed. In trying to break the restraints, he had injured his wrists and needed medical treatment, which he received until 21 January 2009 when he decided to refuse it.
Based on these findings, on 17 April 2009 the applicant was informed by the ANP that his petition was unfounded. 24.  On 19 January 2009 the applicant asked to be taken to Jilava Prison Hospital for treatment and became violent towards the wardens, shouted vulgar abuse and broke a window. The prison decided to withdraw his right to buy goods for a month. He challenged the measure, but on 18 March 2009 the delegate judge upheld it. He appealed and in a final decision of 17 June 2009 the Bucharest District Court cancelled the measure. A copy of the operative part of that decision was communicated to the applicant on 23 June 2009.