5.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Mărgineni Prison. 6.  On 22 November 2003 the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of aggravated murder and placed in Mărgineni Prison. 7.  By a final judgment of 22 June 2007 the Dâmbovița County Court convicted him of aggravated murder and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment. 8.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant lodged his first application before the Court, namely application no. 31470/04, alleging that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention had been violated on account of, inter alia, the material conditions of his detention in Mărgineni Prison. He argued in particular that the cells were small and overcrowded; that the toilets were not separated from the cells, were uncovered and smelled badly because there was no running water; that he lacked sufficient physical exercise given that he was rarely taken out of his cell and allowed to walk in the small courtyard, which in any case smelled unpleasant; and that his food was inadequate and low in calories. 9.  On 19 January 2009 the applicant’s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention was communicated to the Romanian Government and they were asked to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 10.  On 9 June 2009 the observations submitted by the Romanian Government were forwarded to the applicant and he was asked twice to submit observations in reply. However, he failed to submit any observations. 11.  By a decision of 3 July 2012 the Court decided to strike application no. 31470/04 out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. The applicant did not ask for the aforementioned application to be restored to the Court’s list of cases. 12.  According to the applicant, in Mărgineni Prison he had to sleep on metal beds with large holes in them. The cells lacked natural light and air, were squalid and damp, infested with lice and bed bugs, and there were no proper facilities for serving food. The sanitary facilities lacked air vents and running water and had no doors or mirrors, while the waste bins were made out of cut plastic containers. 13.  The applicant attached to his letter several photographs allegedly taken by him in prison to support his allegations. 14.  The applicant also contended that the food was poor and that he did not have access to adequate medical care. 15.  The Government informed the Court that the applicant had been detained in Mărgineni Prison from 22 November 2003 to 26 April 2005, 18 to 21 July 2005, 10 August 2005 to 30 October 2007 and 2 November 2007 to the present date. 16.  During his detention the applicant had stayed in several detention cells. 17.  All the detention cells where the applicant had stayed had been connected to electricity, heating and water supplies. Each cell had a window measuring 0.92 metres long by 0.78 metres wide or 1.75 metres long by 1.25 metres wide, depending on the size of the cell and the number of occupants. The cells were aired manually by opening the available window. They had a separate area with sanitary and personal hygiene facilities, which could be accessed from the detention room directly. The sanitary facility area was fitted with an air vent. 18.  The cells had individual beds and were adequately furnished for the detainees to be able to eat their meals and store their personal belongings. They were fitted with radiators connected to the prison’s own heating system, which provided an adequate temperature when needed. The sanitary utilities were functioning adequately and they were promptly fixed whenever they were damaged. 19.  The detainees had permanent access to drinking water and bathed twice a week in specially designated areas, based on a schedule approved by the prison authorities. 20.  The applicant received a diet which was served in accordance with the regulation in force. The quality of the food was checked daily by, inter alia, a medical office representative and a detainee representative. There was no indication that the food quality had been inappropriate during the applicant’s detention. The food was served in the cells, which were furnished with wooden tables and chairs or benches. 21.  Hygiene in the cells was the detainees’ responsibility, and they were provided regularly with cleaning materials by the prison authorities. From 2009 to 2012 the cells were fumigated by specialist companies every quarter or periodically by the hygiene manager attached to the medical office. The inmates were provided with waste baskets and the sanitary facilities were cleaned daily with chlorine by the prison hygiene manager. 22.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Mărgineni Prison authorities, contending that his right to adequate medical assistance had been breached. He argued that on one occasion he had not been examined by the doctor and had been unable to purchase the prescribed antibiotics the following day. 23.  By a decision of 18 November 2008 the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to Mărgineni Prison dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that the medical examination and the required treatment had been made available to him a couple of days later. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. 24.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a new set of proceedings against the Mărgineni Prison authorities, contending that his rights to adequate medical assistance, to correspondence, to working and educational activities, as well as to access to running water and adequate detention conditions, had been breached. He had to share a cell with twenty other inmates, was involved in activities only once a week, was not provided with adequate medical care or given the correct diet. In addition, the sanitary facilities were out of order, the prison lacked running water, his cell was squalid and lacked air, his right of correspondence was restricted and he was not allowed to work. 25.  By a decision of 19 September 2011 the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to Mărgineni Prison dismissed the applicant’s action. On the basis of the information provided by the prison authorities, it held that the size of the prison did not allow any reduction in the number of detainees per cell, and that the applicant’s cell allowed six cubic metres of air for each detainee. Moreover, he had access to daily activities and exercise, and was provided with adequate medical care in the prison hospital. His cell had been disinfected in August 2011 and no insects had been found during the sanitary inspection of September 2011. Furthermore, the applicant was provided with an adequate diet. The quality of the food was checked daily and there was no indication that it was of poor quality. In addition, the applicant’s cell was equipped with private and hygienic sanitary facilities, which provided permanent access to running water. Also, the applicant’s right to correspondence was observed. Lastly, his request to be allowed to work had not been examined by the work commission on the grounds that he did not meet the work-related requirements. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. 26.  On 14 December 2011 the Moreni District Court, sitting as a final‑instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 19 September 2011. It held that the applicant had failed to identify a particular circumstance when his right of correspondence had been breached. The distribution of correspondence to prisoners by the supervisors of the prison sections rather than by specially authorised personnel had not been unlawful. The applicant had made a general complaint about the absence of adequate medical treatment without identifying the circumstances in which his right had been breached. His medical file contained information that he had repeatedly refused treatment or examinations by specialist doctors. The quality of the food had been adequate and had been reviewed daily by a representative of the medical office. Although the cells were overcrowded, the detainees had access to the statutory number of cubic metres of air, and to sanitary facilities and installations which provided access to drinking water as well as adequate privacy. They also had access to daily activities and exercise. The photographs of the cell bathroom submitted to the court by the applicant did not prove the absence of running or drinking water. Some of the bathroom installations were indeed damaged or missing, but that was linked to the inmates’ behaviour and the limited budget available to the National Administration of Prisons. In addition, according to the documents submitted by the detention centre, in August 2011 the prison had been disinfected twice. The aspects the applicant complained of had been examined bearing in mind the needs of the other detainees and the aspects which made the observance of the detainees’ rights possible, namely the available staff and budget. Lastly, the applicant’s remaining complaints were examined and dismissed by the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences on the basis of the documents submitted by the prison authorities. 27.  On unspecified dates the applicant brought two further sets of proceedings against the Mărgineni Prison authorities, seeking an injunction to be allowed to receive several food items from his family. 28.  By decisions of 10 January and 13 September 2012 the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to Mărgineni Prison allowed the applicant’s actions seeking to be allowed to receive several food items.