6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Bucharest. 7.  On 17 September 2002 the Prahova County Court sentenced the applicant to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 18 February 2004 with the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 8.  The applicant was arrested on 24 January 2002. He remained in prison until his release on probation on 18 May 2011. He served his sentence as follows:
- from 24 January to 1 February 2002 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 1 to 26 February 2002 in Jilava Prison Hospital;
- from 26 February 2002 to 7 January 2003 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 7 January 2003 to 20 March 2003 in Mărgineni Prison;
- from 20 March 2003 to 29 February 2004 in Jilava Prison;
- from 29 February 2004 to 11 February 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 11 February to 21 February 2005 in Jilava Prison;
- from 21 February to 3 March 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 3 March to 25 April 2005 in Jilava Prison Hospital;
- from 25 April to 8 July 2005 in Jilava Prison;
- from 8 July to 18 July 2005 in Rahova Prison;
- from 18 July to 21 July 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 21 July to 29 August 2005 in Rahova Prison;
- from 29 August to 27 September 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 27 September to 3 October 2005 in Rahova Prison;
- from 3 October to 22 November 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 22 November to 28 November 2005 in Rahova Prison;
- from 28 November 2005 to 7 February 2006 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 7 February to 13 March 2006 in Jilava Prison Hospital;
- from 13 March to 9 May 2006 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 9 May to 15 May 2006 in Rahova Prison;
- from 15 May 2006 to 11 January 2007 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 11 January 2007 to 12 January 2007 in Rahova Prison Hospital;
- from 12 January to 2 March 2007 in Jilava Prison;
- from 2 March to 19 June 2007 in Rahova Prison;
- from 19 June 2007 to 19 July 2007 in Jilava Prison Hospital;
- from 19 July to 27 September 2007 in Rahova Prison;
- from 27 September to 12 October 2007 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 12 October 2007 to 11 November 2008 in Rahova Prison;
- from 11 November 2008 to 14 November 2008 in Ploieşti Prison;
- from 14 November to 4 December 2008 in Rahova Prison;
- from 4 December 2008 to 11 May 2010 in Jilava Prison;
- from 11 May to 28 May 2010 in Bacău Prison;
- from 28 May to 21 June 2010 in Craiova Prison;
- from 21 June to 5 July 2010 in Colibaşi Prison;
- from 5 July 2010 to 13 July 2010 in Craiova Prison;
- from 13 July 2010 to 18 May 2011 in Jilava and Ploieşti Prison. 9.  The exact circumstances of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties. 10.  In respect of all the establishments in which he had been detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions of hygiene, that the food had been poor, and that he did not enjoy enough out-of-cell time and appropriate activities. 11.  He also referred to the information provided in the CPT and APADOR-CH reports and to the conditions of detention already established by the Court in its previous judgments with respect to each of the detention facilities where he was detained, alleging that he had experienced the same conditions.
(a)  Ploieşti Prison 12.  The material conditions in Ploieşti Prison throughout the periods when he was detained there between 24 January 2002 and 14 November 2008, were described by the applicant as follows. 13.  The cells were overcrowded and he often had to share an 80 cm wide bed with another inmate. He shared cells equipped with 15 to 24 beds with 20 to 45 detainees: in cell no. 15 (formerly no. 9) there were 24 beds for 42 inmates; in cell no. 31 (formerly no. 22) there were 30 beds for 54 inmates; in cell no. 24 (formerly no. 15) there were 24 beds for 38 inmates; and in cell no. 22 (formerly no. 13) there were 21 beds for 37 inmates.
The above information makes it possible to calculate the personal space available to each detainee and is consistent with the information submitted by the Government and the National Prison Administration (“NPA”) and with the CPT reports on the surface of cells and the occupancy rate. For instance, in May 2005 there were 774 detainees in Ploieşti Prison, whereas the legal capacity of the prison was 566 places. In terms of the minimum space of 4 square metres per person recommended by the CPT, the prison should have housed no more than 220 inmates. The applicant referred to the CPT’s findings that the main problem of Ploieşti Prison was overcrowding, with no more than 2 square metres of personal space per detainee. 14.  There were only bunk beds, and the top bed was 2 metres high. There were no tables in the cells and there was no dining room, so detainees had their meals and other activities (writing, playing chess, and so on) in bed. Cells had only one window, which was 180 cm wide and 120 cm high. 15.  Cells were infested with insects, and the bed linen was unclean and lice-infested. 16.  There were only one or two sinks to a cell, providing cold water only. 17.  Access to communal showers with hot water was allowed only once a week. 18.  The applicant alleged a lack of activities outside the cell during his stay in Ploieşti Prison. He referred also to the CPT findings that the lack of daily activities in that prison was another major problem.
(b)  Mărgineni Prison 19.  The applicant alleged that the cells in Mărgineni Prison were overcrowded too, so he had to share a bed with another inmate. In the cell he occupied, no. 56, there were 36 beds for 68 inmates.
The sinks in the cell did not have hot water and there were 2 toilets for all 68 prisoners.
(c)  Bucharest-Rahova Prison and its Hospital 20.  The material conditions in Rahova Prison and its Hospital throughout his detention there between 2005 and December 2008, were described by the applicant as follows. 21.  There was overcrowding in Rahova Prison and detainees had some 2.77 square metres per person. 22.  There were no chairs in the cell, and the metal bunk beds were designed so that detainees were not able to sit up straight on the lower bed. 23.  Lavatories in the cells had deteriorated ceilings and walls and hot water was available only once a week for one hour. 24.  Moreover, during an unspecified period in the summer of 2005 the water was cut off between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., a situation due, according to a statement made by the head of logistics at Rahova Prison, to a general water shortage. 25.  As a result of these conditions, the applicant was unable to maintain a proper standard of corporal hygiene.
(d)  Bucharest-Jilava Prison and its hospital 26.  The material conditions which the applicant experienced during his periods of detention in Jilava Prison and its hospital from 2003 until his release in 2011 were described by the applicant as follows. 27.  Overcrowding was general and severe throughout the prison and the personal space per detainee was extremely limited: cells with a surface of 13 square metres were accommodating 8 prisoners, and cells with a surface of 20 to 25 square metres housed 35 to 40 prisoners. There were several rows of bunk beds. The applicant often had to share a bed with another inmate; in cell no. 215, for instance, there were 30 beds for 45 inmates, and in cell no. 206 there were 21 beds for 30 inmates. 28.  The above information makes it possible to calculate the personal space available to each detainee and is consistent with the information submitted by the Government and the National Prison Administration (“NPA”) on the surface of cells and the occupancy rate. Between 2007 and 2010 the personal space available to detainees, according to the monthly information recorded in the official registers, varied from 1.21 square metres in April 2007 to 2.43 square metres in March 2008 and 2.34 square metres from February to May 2010. During all these years, only in February 2008 did the applicant have personal space exceeding 4 square metres, that is, 4.55 square metres, to be precise. 29.  The sanitary facilities were poor, the toilets had no water supply and the sinks in the cells had no hot water. 30.  Cells were often dirty and the bed linen was old, worn and often unclean. 31.  Sanitary conditions were very poor, there were cockroaches, rats, lice and bedbugs in the prison; the applicant was even bitten by a rat in August 2009, for which he was given a vaccination. 32.  There were hardly any out-of-cell activities. 33.  The Government submitted more than 2,000 pages with general information on the legal framework and conditions of detention in prisons in Romania, and part of the applicant’s administrative file in detention. 34.  With regard to overcrowding, they submitted that the overcrowding problem had been solved in 2004, save in Ploieşti Prison, where it had been solved only in 2006. The Government provided information submitted by the NPA concerning the number of beds available in each prison and the number of detainees accommodated each year. It shows that in the prisons of Jilava, Rahova and Mărgineni, the number of beds has exceeded the number of prisoners since 2004. In Ploieşti Prison the number of beds has exceeded the number of detainees since 2006. 35.  The Government submitted nonetheless that it was not always possible to determine the precise cells where the applicant had been detained, as prison records were regularly destroyed after a certain time. 36.  Detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells and were accordingly provided with the necessary cleaning products. The other parts of the prisons were cleaned twice a day or whenever necessary, specialised companies were in charge of disinfesting the premises every four months or whenever necessary and the bed sheets were changed once a week. 37.  It was the legal right of detainees to be provided with the necessary products for their personal hygiene. 38.  Between 2006 and 2009 substantial investments were made to modernise the prisons. In each prison there was a committee in charge of supervising the condition of the buildings and cells and ordering repairs whenever necessary. These committees functioned or function according to orders nos. 10306/1997, 82957/1998 and 434/2006 of the General Directorate of Prisons (GDP) within the Ministry of Justice, and order no. 328/2010 of the Director General of the Prisons Directorate. 39.  As a result of the entry into force of Law no. 275/2006, the domestic legislation concerning detention facilities now complied with CPT recommendations on lighting, heating, ventilation, sanitary installations and furniture in prisons. 40.  In all prisons the quality of drinking water was checked regularly, as required by Law no. 458/2002, Government Decision no. 974/2004 and Order no. 3149/2003 of the GDP’s Director General. Cut-offs were purely accidental or limited in time. As for the food, the quantity and quality were set according to the categories of detainees, as prescribed by Order no. 2713/C/2001 of the Minister of Justice.
For an ordinary, male, non-working detainee, the standard was set by “Norm no. 17” at 2,855 calories per day, from a diet consisting of starch, pork meat, vegetables of the Apiaceae family, biscuits, tinned vegetables, margarine, oil, marmalade, 20 grams of salted cheese, onion and garlic, sugar and various spices. Other kinds of meat, fresh vegetables and dairy products, as well as eggs and fruit, dried or fresh, were reserved for particular categories of detainees, such as pregnant women and their babies and sick detainees during their stay in a hospital. 41.  Before the adoption of Law no. 275/2006, prisoners were entitled to at least one shower per week and they could have their bed sheets changed once every fortnight.
Law no. 275/2006 improved this situation, providing for detainees to have a shower at least twice a week and, since all prisons now had a laundry service, bed sheets were changed weekly. 42.  All prisons had a central heating system and cells were heated in winter with warmers. The Minister of Justice’s Order no. 2874/C/1999 laid down clear rules regulating the heating of prisons according to their geographical location. In summer, according to an order of the GDP’s Director General, cell doors had to be kept open and sustained efforts were made to allow detainees to spend as much time outside the cell as possible. 43.  The Government made specific submissions in respect of the following detention facilities in which the applicant was detained:
(a)  Ploieşti Prison 44.  The Government had no information concerning the dimensions of the cells, the number of beds and the available space. 45.  There was no refectory room in Ploieşti Prison, so prisoners had their meals in their cells, where tables were part of the furniture. 46.  Air circulation was possible through the cell windows. 47.  Each cell had two sinks with cold water. Before 2006, prisoners were allowed to shower once a week. After the entry into force of Law no. 275/2006, they were entitled to two showers a week. 48.  As to outside activities, before 2006 the applicant was entitled to a daily one-hour walk. Law no. 275/2006 increased the duration of the daily walk, and the new norm depended on the detention regime (open, semi-open and closed).
Moreover, the applicant had taken part in many out-of-cell activities which, before Law no. 275/2006 entered into force, were available every day to detainees in each cell. After 2006, only prisoners with an open or semi-open regime were entitled to daily activities. 49.  As regards the severe overcrowding in Ploieşti Prison, the Director of National Prison Administration had taken effective measures in January 2006 to diminish the number of prisoners admitted to prison.
(b)  Mărgineni Prison 50.  The Government had no information concerning the dimensions of the cells, the number of beds and the available space. 51.  Cells contained beds, a table, a bench, a coat hanger, a stand for a TV set and a TV set. 52.  A sanitary annex was equipped with sinks, shower, and toilets. 53.  Each cell and sanitary annex had windows, which let in air and natural light. 54.  Detention cell no. 56, where the applicant alleged that he had been detained, had 18 beds and 16 prisoners.
(c)  Bucharest-Rahova Prison 55.  The number of detainees did not exceed the number of beds. The cell, with a surface of 21 square metres and a window measuring 1.44 square metres, contained three beds, a table, a bench, a coat hanger and a stand for a TV set. A 1.2 square meters store room with a 0.72 square meters window was attached to the cell. 56.  A sanitary annex measuring 6.45 square metres was attached to the cell, equipped with two sinks, one shower, a toilet, and a window measuring 0.72 square metres. 57.  In winter, the cells were heated to 18 degrees. Hot and cold water was available permanently. Until 2006, detainees were allowed to use the shower weekly, and thereafter twice a week. However, in summer, to save money, there were restrictions on the use of cold water. 58.  The applicant was involved in many activities outside the cell, such as building wooden ships (from December 2007 to November 2008), writing articles for two prison newspapers, attending religious activities (from April 2007 to November 2008) and a special programme to prevent HIV infection and the consumption of illicit drugs, and he frequently used the prison library. 59.  The applicant also received psychological assistance for his problems.
(d)  Bucharest-Jilava Prison and its Hospital 60.  The prison records indicating the cells occupied by the applicant from 2003 to 2006 had been destroyed. 61.  In 2007 and 2008 the applicant had occupied cells no. 206, which measured 32.76 square metres, and no. 618, measuring 36.45 square metres. Between 11 and 30 persons had been held with him at a time. 62.  In 2008 and 2009 the applicant had occupied cell no. 514, measuring 43.65 square metres. Between 8 and 22 persons had been held with him at a time, although no exact details were available. 63.  The applicant had also occupied the following cells in 2009 and 2010:
- nos. 102 and 104, each measuring 32.90 square metres and shared with 14 other persons;
- no. 214, measuring 40.28 square metres, with 20 other persons;
- no. 302, measuring 29.14 square metres, with 15 to 17 other persons;
- no. 106, measuring 33.18 square metres, with 14 other persons;
- no. 105, measuring 33.84 square metres, with 14 other persons;
- no. 104, measuring 32.76 square metres, with 14 other persons. 64.  All the cells had good air circulation and natural light coming from three windows, in the cell, the sanitary group and the store room. 65.  Sanitary groups in the cells were disinfected every day, cells were whitewashed whenever necessary, and rat extermination and treatment with insecticide were carried out at least once every three weeks. 66.  Detainees were allowed to use the showers twice a week, on Mondays and Fridays.
Cold water was available permanently, and in 2007 a water purification system was introduced for drinking water. 67.  As for outside activities, before 2006 the applicant was entitled to a daily 30 minute walk. Law no. 275/2006 increased that to three hours a day.
Moreover, the applicant took part in many out-of-cell activities, such as sanitary, legal, moral and religious activities. He was also free to participate in activities focusing on family life and the prevention of HIV infection, sports and intellectual competitions, and maintaining a pro-active attitude to social activities. 68.  Both the applicant and the respondent Government relied mainly on documents from the applicant’s prison medical file. They each interpreted the information in the documents differently, however. 69.  The applicant alleged that while in detention he had developed various diseases as a result of the poor conditions. He alleged a lack of adequate treatment by the prison doctor and a lack of medicines. 70.  The applicant’s medical record drawn up when he was placed in detention on 25 January 2002 made no reference to any disease save for hepatitis which he had developed six years earlier. 71.  The applicant claimed that from 2002 he developed numerous dental problems, which became very serious for lack of proper treatment and monitoring. 72.  On 25 October 2002 the applicant was seen by a prison dentist, who diagnosed an abscess.
He claimed that in November-December 2003 he had had several teeth extracted, but this was not recorded in his medical file. 73.  From January 2004, while in Ploieşti Prison, the applicant was issued with a series of medical records which referred to his dental health.
In January 2004, for example, he received medical treatment with antibiotics and pain killers for toothache and regular headaches.
On 13 May 2004, in reply to his request to see a dentist, the applicant was informed by the Ploieşti Prison that the prison dentist was on maternity leave. As a consequence, only emergencies were taken to the Ploieşti Hospital Dental Emergency Service. His case was not an emergency.
On 25 August 2004, the Ploieşti Prison informed the NPA that the applicant had personality disorders and problems affecting his nose, but that he did not have any dental problems requiring emergency treatment. 74.  On 3 December 2004 he was diagnosed with occipital neuralgia (Arnold’s neuralgia), for which treatment was recommended. 75.  Between 2004 and 2006 the applicant sent numerous letters to the NPA about his dental problems. 76.  On 13 May and 26 August 2004 the NPA informed the applicant by letter that Ploieşti Prison had no dentist and that he would be sent to see the dentist at Târgşor Prison for urgent dental treatment only. The applicant was never sent to Târgşor Prison for dental treatment. 77.  On 28 October 2004, the applicant having requested a stay of execution of his sentence on health grounds, an official medical report issued by Prahova Department of Pathology diagnosed the applicant as having occipital neuralgia which could be treated within the prison system. No treatment was prescribed for his neuralgia and no mention was made of his dental problems. 78.  On 25 January 2005 the applicant was informed by the NPA that he had been diagnosed with “partial edentulism” (loss of teeth) and that the dental prosthesis he had been recommended could be manufactured within the prison dentistry system, but only when he could afford to pay for it. 79.  On 24 March 2005 the partial edentulism diagnosis was confirmed by the Jilava Bucharest Prison Hospital, which also diagnosed chronic periodontitis and recommended further dental extraction. On 20 April 2005 the applicant was hospitalised because of his frontal and lateral edentulism and a tooth was extracted; further monitoring was recommended. 80.  The applicant’s medical record indicated chronic periodontitis on the following dates: 22, 25 and 28 November 2005, 19 June, 19 July, 27 September, and 12 October 2007, and 13 November and 4 December 2008, but there is no mention of any treatment prescribed for this ailment. 81.  In 2005 the applicant complained on numerous occasions (in June, July, October and December) that he was not receiving appropriate medical treatment. In reply, based on information provided by the Ploieşti Prison, the NPA informed him that he was receiving appropriate treatment. 82.  On 19 September and 8 November 2005 the applicant submitted the same complaint to the Ministry of Justice. He provided details of his condition (a swollen neck and clearly visible injuries on his neck, sharp pains in the ears and blood in his saliva), and indicated that he had not been seen by a doctor. 83.  The applicant was hospitalised in Jilava Prison Hospital from 7 February to 13 March 2006 and was treated with antibiotics and pain killers. A medical letter of 13 March 2006 indicated that the applicant was suffering from multiple and complicated dental caries, chronic generalised periodontitis requiring treatment, frontal edentulism, neuralgia of the superior laryngeal nerve, nasal septal deviation, chronic rhinitis and occipital neuralgia requiring treatment. Special diet, antibiotics and treatment of the applicant’s dental problems were further recommended. 84.  On 23 March 2006 the NPA confirmed that the applicant had swollen glands and nodules in the mouth, but denied any link between these symptoms and the applicant’s dental problems, alleging that the latter had been treated. 85.  The applicant had several teeth extracted between March 2006 and November 2008. 86.  A medical report of 14 June 2007 indicated that the applicant was suffering from chronic periodontitis. No treatment was prescribed. 87.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant was able to consult a neurologist, who found that his migraine had worsened in terms of intensity and frequency. 88.  On 17 October 2008 the applicant was examined at the Rahova Hospital where he was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis and dental radicular remains. 89.  The applicant’s medical record in Rahova Prison mentioned migraine on 4 December 2008; no treatment was mentioned. 90.  On 13 May 2010 the applicant’s medical file indicated that the applicant had lost 12 teeth and that little remained of two other teeth. 91.  Between 21 June and 1 July 2010 the applicant was hospitalised at the Colibaşi Prison Hospital, where he was diagnosed with duodenal ulcer, chronic hepatitis, chronic migraine, biliary dyskinesia and urinary tract infection. He was not examined by the dentist, who was on leave. 92.  On 2 July 2010 the administration of Rahova Prison indicated in a letter to the Romanian Government that the applicant was not known to have any chronic diseases. 93.  On 12 July 2010, while in Craiova Prison, the applicant demanded proper treatment for his dental problems, including dentures, and said that he was ready to bear the cost of the treatment. 94.  On 19 July 2010 NPA informed the applicant, in reply to his renewed request for a dental prosthesis that he had to pay 40 % of its price. 95.  In August 2010 the applicant reiterated his request for urgent treatment and informed the authorities that he was finally in a position to pay the necessary costs. 96.  On 11 October 2010 he was allowed to start the treatment for his dental problems at his own expense in the private practice of Dr E.M. in the city of Ploieşti, with appointments and treatment (including a prosthesis) on 11, 15, 20 and 26 October 2010, 3, 19, 23 and 29 November 2010, 3, 8 and 17 December 2010, and 5, 18 and 24 January 2011. During the appointments he was under prison escort. The medical findings and the treatment prescribed were recorded in health reports which were included in his prison medical file.
The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of the medical report following his first appointment, on 11 October 2010, from which it appears that he had caries and needed a prosthesis. 97.  By May 2011 the applicant had lost 14 teeth. 98.  The Government submitted that while in Ploieşti Prison the applicant was diagnosed with tooth abscesses, partial edentulism, gum inflammation and chronic periodontitis. 99.  He was examined, diagnosed and/or underwent treatment as follows:
- tooth abscesses, on 16, 17, 18 and 19 August 2002, on 9 and 15 January 2004 and on 20 December 2005;
- tooth pain, facial and tooth neuralgia, on 11 April, 4 August, 1 September, 13 October and 3 November 2004;
- periodontal inflammation, on 20 April 2005;
- chronic periodontitis, on 13 May 2005 and 2 May and 16 June 2006;
- tooth extraction, on 28 January 2006;
- vital dental pulp extirpation, on 12 June 2006; and
- coronary obturation of one root canal, on 22 September 2006. 100. For all these problems he received appropriate treatment with antibiotics, vitamins, anti-inflammatory drugs and pain killers. 101.  While in Rahova Prison, the applicant was examined and diagnosed with periodontal abscess on 16 March 2007 and with vestibular abscess on 26 March 2007, for which he received antibiotic treatment.
He also underwent the following surgery: two vital dental pulp extirpations on 12 June 2006, coronary obturation on 22 September 2006, root canal obturation on 29 March 2007, as well as two dental extractions, on 14 November 2007 and 29 January 2008. 102.  On 6 July 2007 the applicant was taken to the Dental Surgery Clinic in Bucharest, where no disease “requiring emergency surgery” was detected. 103.  The Government submitted a letter of 15 February 2011 from the Director of the Medical Directorate of the NPA, in which the Director indicated that, upon examination of the applicant’s prison medical file, it appeared that the applicant had received treatment for his dental problems from 9 January 2004 until 7 October 2010. He admitted that it did not emerge from that file that any therapy plan had been conceived in respect of the applicant’s dental problems. Lastly, the letter indicated that from 13 October 2010 the applicant had been consulting a private dentist in Ploieşti to have a prosthesis made. 104.  Lastly, the Government submitted an undated medical record concerning the applicant from which it appears that he was provided with an estimate of the costs of a dental prosthesis by the private practice of Dr E.M., where he had been treated between October 2010 and January 2011 (see paragraph 96 above). 105.  In 2004 and 2006 the applicant made numerous complaints on the basis of Government Ordinance no. 56/2003 (see paragraph 115 below) concerning the poor conditions of his detention, including the lack of beds and living space, and inadequate medical treatment. 106.  For instance, on 4 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ploieşti Court of First Instance, complaining of overcrowding, a poor diet and lack of appropriate medical care.
This complaint was eventually dismissed by a final judgment of Prahova County Court on 12 August 2004, which found that “the conditions of detention complained of exist in all prisons and cannot therefore be considered as an action or a failure imputable to the prison administration and therefore contrary to the legal provisions”. 107.  Following the entry into force of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (see paragraph 116 below), the applicant lodged a complaint with the delegate judge concerning the conditions of his detention, and in particular, poor hygiene, lack of personal space, lack of dental examinations and appropriate medical treatment in general, and inappropriate and insufficient food. 108.  On 26 January 2009 the delegate judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison were not contrary to the requirements of either the domestic law or the Council of Europe’s instruments, that Jilava Prison had not had a dentist since 2007 and that therefore detainees were taken for consultation in limited numbers to Prahova Prison, and that in any event, about 80% of the prison population in Romania had dental problems. The applicant was also informed that he would be taken to see a dentist at Rahova Prison on 29 January 2009.
The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 23 March 2009. 109.  On the basis of Article 455 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in conjunction with Article 453 c), the applicant made several requests for a stay of execution of his sentence, in order to work and earn the money he needed for his family and to afford proper medical treatment for himself. 110.  His request made in 2004 was eventually dismissed by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal on 16 June 2004, despite a favourable recommendation by the Welfare Department of Ploieşti City Council.
Another request, made in 2006, was dismissed on 15 November 2006 by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal, and a request made in 2007 was eventually dismissed by the Bucharest Court of First Instance on 12 December 2007. 111.  The applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against A.R., the general practitioner at Ploieşti Prison, alleging that he was left without appropriate medical care for his various ailments, such as dental and eye diseases, headaches, stomach ulcer, sinusitis and cervical spinal cord compression. 112.  On 13 October 2004 the military prosecutor in charge of the investigation took a statement from the doctor, who declared that the applicant had no chronic or acute disease that required emergency treatment. The same day, the prosecutor decided not to open proceedings against the doctor. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on 18 February 2005 by a higher-ranking prosecutor as having been lodged out of time.
The applicant lodged a complaint against the prosecutors’ decisions with the Bucharest Military Court, which dismissed it on 12 April 2005. This decision was upheld by the Military Court of Appeal (Tribunalul Militar Teritorial) on 26 May 2005.