6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Iaşi. 7.  The applicant was sentenced in 1992 to ten years’ imprisonment for damage to community property (avut obştesc). By a final decision of 7 September 1993 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Criminal Code referring to crimes against community property. 8.  On 27 August 1996 the Prosecutor General lodged a request to have the proceedings against the applicant reopened, on the basis that his conviction was based on provisions declared unconstitutional. By a final decision of 23 September 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the request to reopen the proceedings, quashed the previous conviction, changed the legal qualification of the offences committed by the applicant and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment for fraud, ordering his immediate release from prison. At that time he had already served fifty‑four months of the original sentence. 9.  On 10 May 2002 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Ministry of Finance, asking for compensation because he had been imprisoned for fifty-four months, while the final decision of 1997 reduced his sentence to only four months’ imprisonment. 10.  By a final decision of 20 December 2004, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed his action on the basis of the provisions of Articles 504 and 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which limited the right to be paid compensation solely to acquittal or a decision of the prosecutor not to pursue criminal proceedings. Taking into account that the applicant had not been acquitted, the domestic courts concluded that he did not qualify for payment of compensation on the basis of the provisions of the CCP as in force at that time, and dismissed his claim in this respect. 11.  The applicant was arrested on 28 March 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was committed for trial on 20 June 2001. By a final decision of 16 January 2003 he was found guilty and was sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The domestic courts, after reviewing evidence, including witness statements, a financial report and the applicant’s statements, concluded that the applicant had caused harm to different private companies by issuing cheques without the funds to cover them. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the proceedings. In his appeal on points of law he complained that no evidence had been adduced in his favour. The appellate court reviewed the decisions of the lower courts and concluded that they had assessed the factual situation correctly and identified that the applicant had committed the offence, and that his requests to adduce evidence in his favour had been allowed. 12.  The applicant had been detained in connection with the second set of proceedings from 28 March 2001 until 19 March 2004, when he was released conditionally. 13.  According to him, he was detained in the Iaşi police station cells until 25 June 2001, when he was transferred to Iaşi High‑Security Prison. 14.  The applicant complains mainly of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He alleges that during his entire detention he had to share a bed with other prisoners, mostly dangerous criminals.
(a)Iaşi police station 15.  According to the applicant, in Iaşi police station he occupied cell 20. It had eight beds and was occupied by ten detainees. The surface area of the cell was 14.2 square metres. 16.  He complained that the cell had no toilet. The detainees went to the toilets twice a day, at 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. respectively. The rest of the time the detainees had to use a bucket. 17.  He alleged that he had been allowed to walk outside the cell for twenty minutes each day. 18.  He also complained that there was no running water. 19.  He further complained that the cell had no natural light. It had a small window with a grille.
(b)Iaşi prison 20.  The applicant alleged that between 25 June 2001 and 18 May 2003 he had been placed in several cells: cells 72 and 74 (when he refused to eat), 95, 4 and 51. 21.  He alleged that cells 4 and 51, where he spent most of his time while in detention, had no natural light. He claimed that when he had complained to the prison authorities about the lack of natural light he had been transferred to cell 95, which he shared with murderers and paedophiles. 22.  He further complained that these cells had more detainees than beds. According to the applicant the cells had a surface area of 32.3 square metres and were occupied by up to forty-five detainees. 23.  He acknowledged that he had refused the twenty‑minute outdoor walks and therefore he had been disciplinarily punished on 31 October 2002. He justified his attitude by the pain caused to his eyes by natural light. 24.  According to the information provided by the Iasi Inspectorate of Police to the Romanian Government, the applicant was placed in cell 20. Each detainee had his own bed. However, there was no information concerning the surface area of the cell and the number of prisoners occupying it for the relevant period of detention. 25.  The cell was fitted with clean toilets and had natural lighting and adequate ventilation.
(b) Iaşi prison 26.  According to the information submitted by the National Prison Administration (“the NPA”) and the Iaşi Prison Administration, the applicant shared cell 27 with inmates with no previous convictions, serving sentences less severe than ten years’ imprisonment. 27.  The surface area of the cell was 33.3 square metres. However, there was no information concerning the number of prisoners occupying it for the relevant period of detention. 28.  They also alleged that the cell had natural lighting and good ventilation. It had a supply of running and drinking water. 29.  According to the Government the prison had its own electric and heating facilities. The detainees could take a shower at least once a week. 30.  The Government claimed that the applicant used to participate in entertainment and sport activities. However, on the ground that the applicant refused to take the daily walk and to participate in recreation activities, he was sanctioned with a reprimand on 31 October 2002. 31.  The applicant alleged that his eyesight had been seriously impaired as a result of his detention in cells with neon light on permanently. He claimed that at the time of his arrest he had 2.5 dioptres in both eyes, while after twenty months of detention he had 3 dioptres in his right eye and 5 dioptres in his left eye. He submitted in this connection a medical certificate issued by the hospital of the Iaşi Prison on 15 November 2002 attesting to that statement. 32.  The Government maintained that according to the applicant’s medical record, he had been “healthy and fit for work” when he was placed in Iaşi Prison. They also admitted that the applicant has since been under medical surveillance for simple hypermetropy and presbyopia. They also submitted that on 15 November 2002 the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic conjunctivitis and simple hypermetropia and on 7 July 2003 with ophthalmological haemorrhage. 33.  According to the applicant’s medical file, from the date of his imprisonment he was regularly examined by doctors and was prescribed and administered medication during the course of his detention. 34.  The applicant lodged a civil action in damages against the Romanian State for the worsening of his eyesight. His claims were dismissed by the Iaşi County Court in a first-instance judgement of 27 January 2003 as unsubstantiated. From the information available in the case file it appears that the applicant lodged an appeal, but no information is available as to the final outcome of the case. According to the Government, the applicant did not continue the proceedings.