5.  The applicant, Mr Adrian Richart Zamfirachi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  At the time of the events the applicant was a lawyer registered with the Bucharest Bar Association. 7.  On 23 April 2010, the National Anticorruption Department (“the NAD”) asked the Bucharest Court of Appeal to place the applicant in pre‑trial detention for twenty-nine days on charges of organising a criminal group (constituirea unui grup infracţional) and trading in influence (complicitate la cumpărare de influență). At the hearing the applicant asked the court to note, inter alia, that he had been taken before the court handcuffed by a single pair of handcuffs to a co-accused. 8.  By an interlocutory judgment delivered on the same date, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 26 April 2010, the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted the NAD’s request. 9.  At a hearing of 23 August 2010 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the applicant argued, inter alia, that he had been brought to the hearings and presented to the public and press handcuffed to a co-accused. He also claimed that the conditions of his pre-trial detention were degrading. 10.  By an interlocutory judgment delivered on the same date, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that the applicant could lodge a complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention under Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences with the post-sentencing judge, who was competent ratione materiae to examine his submissions. 11.  On 26 October 2010 the applicant brought proceedings against the Codlea Prison authorities before the post-sentencing judge, complaining, inter alia, that he had been unlawfully restrained in public and when being taken before the domestic courts. 12.  By an interlocutory judgment of 1 November 2010 the post‑sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He held that according to the relevant legal provision detainees had to be restrained during their transfer from the transport vehicle to the court-house cells and from the court-house cells to the courtrooms when passing through public areas. Consequently, when the applicant had attended hearings before the Braşov Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation he had been restrained only during his transfer from the transport vehicle to the court-house cells and from the court-house cells to the courtroom when he had been passing through public areas. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 13.  By a final judgment of 18 January 2011, the Braşov District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that the applicant had been lawfully handcuffed. The measure had been necessary because of the route taken, which was a public route, had been applied only for that segment of the transfer, and had been proportionate to the potential danger the transfer represented for the safety of the public, the applicant and the escort. The same treatment was applied to any detainee in a similar situation. The applicant’s public exposure in handcuffs had been a consequence of his detention and not the result of an abuse of power by the prison authorities. Therefore, the applicant had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
 14.  In a letter of 30 November 2011 the applicant informed the Court that when he had learned about the criminal investigation opened against him, and his potential pre-trial detention, he had informed the press about it and had asked to speak to the prosecutor investigating his case. 15.  From 23 April to 27 July 2010 the applicant was detained in cells of the Bucharest Police Department (Arestul Direcției Generale a Poliției Municipiului București).
(a)  The applicant 16.  The applicant stated before the Court that he had been detained in a 14 sq. m cell together with five other inmates. The cell was fitted with a squat toilet which the applicant could not use properly because of recent Achilles tendon reconstructive surgery that prevented him from squatting without pain shooting through his leg. The cell also had no sink, and he was able to wash himself and the cutlery only by using water from the pipe designed to flush the toilet. 17.  He also stated that on 31 May 2010 his cell had been disinfected with chemical substances sprayed by several individuals wearing protective suits and breathing masks in the presence of himself and the other inmates. Although he had asked to leave the cell for a walk, permission had been refused. His food, bed sheets, clothes, cutlery and dishes had not been removed from the cell prior to the disinfection. All six prisoners occupying the cell had begun to feel unwell afterwards.
(b)  The Government 18.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in a cell of 14.57 sq. m equipped with six beds with bedrolls and a table with chairs. The cell was also equipped with a sink and a shower which were separated from the rest of the cell by a curtain. The inmates had access to cold and hot water. The cell was also equipped with a squat toilet and ventilated by a double window. 19.  The bedroll and the sanitary facilities were in proper condition. The cell was cleaned by the inmates. Hygiene products were purchased by them or supplied by the administration of the detention centre. The detainees were also allowed to receive personal hygiene items from their families. 20.  The applicant had been incarcerated together with five other persons and each one of them had been afforded a bed. 21.  On 31 May 2010 the cell had been disinfected according to the rules in force. The detainees had been evacuated prior to the disinfection and had only been allowed to re-enter the cell three hours after the disinfection had finished. There was no record of any incidents with regard to the environment or the health and security of any persons during the disinfection. Moreover, the applicant had not lodged any complaint in respect of the disinfection procedure and the applicant’s medical file did not indicate any health problems connected with it. 22.  In his initial application, the applicant stated before the Court that every other day during the proceedings before the first instance court (derulare a procedurii judiciare ȋn cursul judecații ȋn fond a cauzei) he was taken to court hearings and kept locked up in the court-house cells while in the court building. The court-house cells lacked windows, running water and functioning sanitary facilities.
(b)  The Government 23.  The Government, relying on information and documents provided by the Presidents of the Bucharest and Braşov Courts of Appeal, stated that the court-house cells of the Bucharest Court of Appeal had been substantially renovated and re-opened in September 2006. The cells were fitted with modern equipment and facilities. Each cell had sanitary facilities, a lavatory, permanent running water, a ventilation system, windows, a lighting system, a heating system and benches. The cells were located in the basement, together with the registry, the court’s archives and the clerks’ offices. Any damage to the facilities that occurred was caused by the defendants themselves was remedied promptly. 24.  There were no detention rooms at the Braşov Court of Appeal. The detainees who were summoned before the court waited in a separate room to attend the hearing. The room had sanitary facilities, running water, heating, electric light and a double window. If running water was ever temporarily unavailable, the problem was immediately remedied. 25.  The applicant stated before the Court that when he was taken to court hearings he had to travel in unheated and unventilated cars, and that this situation persisted for a period of more than two hundred days, throughout the criminal proceedings against him. 26.  The Government stated that the applicant had been transported to the court mostly by Rahova Prison and only four times by Codlea Prison. 27.  The Rahova Prison authorities used cars which seated a number of passengers equal to the number of detainees who were being transported. The vehicles were equipped with metal nets or grids and locks in order to protect the police escort officers. The detainees were transported in separate compartments according to their assigned category. The vehicles were in an adequate condition and complied with the road safety regulations. They were fitted with overhead windows for light and ventilation, as well as with electrical and heating equipment. The vehicles were subjected to periodical technical inspections. Additional facilities had been installed in the vehicles, such as ventilation sun roofs in the central compartment, benches in the rear compartment, air conditioning, and heating systems. 28.  The Codlea Prison authorities transferred detainees to the courts by two vehicles, one with nine seats and one with forty seats. Both vehicles complied with the safety regulations and were equipped with ventilation and heating and lighting systems and had separate compartments for different categories of detainees. The number of inmates transported was proportionate to the number of seats available in the vehicles.