5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 23 May 2003, the Bucharest Social Services Department issued a certificate attesting that the applicant, who has suffered from flaccid paralysis of both of his lower limbs since he was a child, had been classified as a person with a permanent severe physical disability. The medical panel which examined the applicant at that time did not grant him the right to benefit from a personal care assistant. 7.  During the years 2003 to 2009, several sets of criminal proceedings resulting in conviction were brought against the applicant on different charges of embezzlement and fraud. On 10 March 2010 the Bucharest District Court granted the applicant’s request to have the different prison sentences joined, and thereby sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. 8.  From 11 May 2009 to 23 August 2011, the applicant served out that prison sentence in Jilava Prison. 9.  According to the applicant, his cell in Jilava Prison was overcrowded: he shared a 20 sq. m cell with seventeen other detainees. Sanitary conditions were poor and he lacked regular access to hot and cold water. There was no table in the cell and detainees had to eat their meals in bed. The cell was equipped with a squat toilet, which was not specifically adapted for people with disabilities. 10.  No special arrangements were made for him in the light of his disability. He was dependent on the other inmates to be moved around the prison, because he did not have his own wheelchair. He was not assigned a personal care assistant and was permanently subjected to humiliating and degrading remarks from his cellmates, the same people to whom he had to appeal for assistance. 11.  The applicant served his sentence in a semi-open wing of the prison. He was allowed to move about freely during the day, within the areas designated by the prison administration. The cell’s door was open during the day. 12.  Relying on the information submitted by the prison authorities concerning the size and facilities of the cell that the applicant had occupied during his detention in Jilava Prison, the Government stated that applicant had been held in cells nos. 419 and 416. Cell no. 419 was 34.81 sq. m in size; it had twenty-four beds and accommodated between nineteen and twenty-three detainees at the relevant time. Cell no. 416 was 34.36 sq. m in size; it had twenty-two beds and accommodated between twenty-one and twenty-two detainees at the relevant time. Each cell had four windows, one table, one or two benches for seating and a toilet. 13.  Access to communal showers was allowed twice a week for fifteen minutes each time, in accordance with a pre-established schedule. 14.  The inmates were responsible for the cleaning of their cells, using products left at their disposal by the prison. Pest control measures and insecticide treatments were carried out every three months. 15.  The applicant had a wheelchair at his disposal and the toilet seat was adapted for his special needs. Within the prison three access ramps had been installed in order to facilitate the freedom of movement of disabled people: the first one at the entrance to the building, the second one at the entrance to the first detention wing, which allowed access to the second and the third detention wings, and the last one at the entrance of the fourth detention wing. 16.  According to the prison medical records, the applicant was diagnosed at the beginning of his imprisonment with several chronic diseases: post-polio syndrome, type 2 diabetes, diabetic polyneuropathy, gastroduodenitis, ischaemic heart disease, arterial hypertension and otitis. 17.  From the information submitted by the prison authorities, it appears that he was prescribed specific medication for each of these diseases and that he received continuing medical treatment and a special diet for diabetics. 18.  He was hospitalised in the medical unit of Jilava Prison between 16 and 23 July 2009, 11 and 18 January 2010, and 21 and 26 October 2010. 19.  A forensic medical report produced by the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute on 23 December 2009 concluded that he could be treated in prison hospitals as long as all medical recommendations were complied with and his state of health was periodically reviewed. 20.  The applicant lodged several different complaints on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (“Law no. 275/2006”) with the judge with responsibility for Jilava Prison (“the post-sentencing judge”), as detailed below. 21.  On 3 June 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the post‑sentencing judge concerning the conditions of his detention and complaining of a lack of appropriate medical care. He indicated that, although he was disabled, he had not been assigned a person to assist him and that he had not been given food adapted to his needs as a diabetic. He further complained that he was being kept in an overcrowded cell of 20 sq. m, which he shared with some eighteen other inmates, and that he could not use the sanitary facilities because they were not adapted to his disability. 22.  On 6 July 2010 the judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his medical care were not contrary to the requirements of domestic law. The judge took into account the fact that the applicant was registered with the prison infirmary, all his conditions having been duly recorded. The judge also noted that he was receiving appropriate medication for his conditions and a special diet for diabetics. 23.  As to the material conditions of the cell, the judge noted that the applicant was detained in a cell of around 40 sq. m, which included nine bunk beds, the applicant being assigned a bed on level one, not far from the sanitary facilities. He noted that the cell’s sanitary facilities consisted of a squat toilet above which was placed an iron stand topped with a wooden seat, and a sink. He underlined that, twice a week, the prisoners had access to the common bathroom where they could have a hot shower. He noted that prisoners could also heat water in their cells which they could use for personal hygiene purposes. He therefore concluded that the applicant was being held in proper conditions, in compliance with the minimum standards provided by domestic law. He considered that the applicant not being given a personal care assistant did not amount to a violation of his right to medical assistance, as one of his fellow inmates was assisting him by moving him around in his wheelchair and helping him with his personal hygiene. 24.  On 23 July 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Court of First Instance against the judge’s decision, stating that, despite his physical disability, he had not been assigned a personal care assistant, the toilet facilities in his cell and in the common bathroom were not adapted to his special needs, and he had not been given a wheelchair but had been forced to borrow one from another inmate from time to time. He also complained that the cell where he was held was overcrowded, that there were insufficient ramps for disabled access in the prison and that he sometimes went without food as he could not get to the canteen. He finally underlined that he had encountered difficulties whenever he had been required to be present at court hearings, as he had had to be carried to and from the prisoner transport vehicle by other prisoners and had been obliged to use an entrance which was not equipped with a ramp for the disabled. 25.  During the proceedings before the Bucharest Court of First Instance, two witnesses gave statements. C.B., one of the applicant’s cellmates, stated that the toilet facilities in their cell and in the common bathroom were not adapted to the applicant’s needs, and confirmed that the applicant had to borrow a specially adapted toilet seat from another cell. He noted that he often offered to help the applicant to go to the bathroom. In addition, the witness pointed out that the prison entrances that the detainees were obliged to use were not fitted with ramps. M.F., another cellmate, stated that when he had needed to appear before the domestic courts, the applicant had had to be carried by other prisoners or by prison guards to the prisoner transport vehicle. He added that, during journeys from the prison to the domestic courts, “the applicant only sat down if he could grab a seating place”. He confirmed that the prison entrance used when detainees returned from court provided no special disabled access. 26.  By a final decision of 7 December 2010 the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s complaint as without merit. It noted that the post-sentencing judge had visited the applicant’s cell, heard two witnesses, checked the applicant’s medical records and completed a report about the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, which had been signed by the applicant and a witness. On the basis of the information submitted by prison authorities, and after pointing out that the applicant had failed to prove that his medical conditions had worsened during his imprisonment, it concluded that the applicant was in reality receiving appropriate and sufficient medical care and that his cell complied with the minimum national standards as regards individual space and available furniture.
The court also noted on the basis of the information submitted by Jilava prison’s authorities that the prison was equipped with two access ramps for the disabled and that the squat toilet in the applicant’s cell had a specially adapted seat. It further noted that the vehicle used by the prison for prisoner transport was fitted with a number of specially adapted seats. It noted that the applicant could have borrowed a wheelchair from another inmate to access the common bathroom and expressed its conviction that the difficulties encountered by the applicant had only been a temporary situation, as the applicant would be given a wheelchair so that he could access the common prison bathroom despite his disability. It also noted that although the certificate attesting to the applicant’s severe permanent physical disability did not mention any right to benefit from a personal care assistant, the prison administration had assigned him one from time to time to help him with day-to-day tasks. It also pointed out that other detainees had helped the applicant into the prison vehicle used for the transfer of detainees to court. 27.  On 18 August 2010 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the post-sentencing judge, alleging that his cell was infested with cockroaches, bedbugs, lice, flat bugs and other insects, subjecting all the inmates to a high risk of infection. In addition, during the summer the hot water supply was cut off, preventing him from keeping himself clean. The applicant claimed that during his imprisonment he contracted new diseases and his medical conditions had worsened. 28.  On 22 September 2010 the judge dismissed this new complaint on the grounds that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were not contrary to the requirements of domestic law. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Court of First Instance against the judge’s decision. 29.  By a final decision of 8 February 2011 the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court noted that the prison authorities had entered into a contract with a company which was carrying out the disinfection of the prison every three months. It further noted that the hot water supply had been cut off from 3 July to 21 August 2010 for annual maintenance. Nevertheless, on 14 July 2010 open-air showers had been set up in the courtyard using barrels of water warmed by the sun, and on 10 August 2010 a boiler had been installed in the common bathroom. The court also considered that the information provided by the prison authorities showed that the applicant was receiving adequate medical assistance and that the illnesses he was suffering from had been contracted prior to his imprisonment. 30.  In 2009 the applicant applied for temporary release from prison on account of his family situation. He indicated that he had a minor child (born on 2 November 2006) who had been placed in a foster care centre because the child’s mother had been hospitalised with schizophrenia (see paragraph 37 below). He asked to have the execution of his prison sentence suspended in order to take care of his son while the child’s mother was in hospital. 31.  By a judgment of 8 October 2009 the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s application on the grounds that he could not support his family in the short period of time, three months, allowed by law for temporary release from prison. The court noted that the applicant had failed to indicate how he would be able to take care of his minor child, given the fact that he was disabled. 32.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment was dismissed as without merit by the Bucharest County Court on 16 November 2009. The county court noted that the applicant had not shown how he would be able to help his family if temporarily released, taking into account his disability and the fact his child was in the care of social services by virtue of a final decision. It also noted that, in its opinion, the applicant’s situation did not disclose any special circumstances that would have serious consequences for his family life. 33.  On 13 July 2009 the applicant made a new application seeking temporary release from prison on medical grounds. 34.  The forensic medical report produced by the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute on 23 December 2009 (see paragraph 19 above) concluded that the various health problems affecting the applicant did not make his detention untenable. It noted that all his conditions could be dealt with by the prison medical system as long as all medical recommendations were complied with and his state of health was periodically reviewed. 35.  On the basis of this medical report, the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s application in a judgment of 22 January 2010. 36.  An appeal on points of law brought by the applicant against this judgment was dismissed as without merit by a final decision of the Bucharest County Court of 11 March 2010. 37.  On 3 July 2009, the director of the kindergarten where the applicant’s son was enrolled notified the Social Services and Child Protection Department (“the DGSACP”) that neither of the child’s parents had come to pick him up from kindergarten. After a police investigation, it was discovered that the child’s mother had been hospitalised in a psychiatric institution, having been diagnosed as schizophrenic, while the child’s father was serving a prison sentence in Jilava Prison. 38.  By a decision of 7 July 2009 the executive director of the DGSACP ordered that the child be placed in an emergency care centre. 39.  On 11 August 2009 the DGSACP lodged an application with the Bucharest County Court seeking an order for the long-term placement of the applicant’s child in a foster care centre, and that parental rights and responsibilities be exercised by the director of the foster care centre and by the district mayor. 40.  The applicant attended the hearing held before the court. He indicated that his son could be looked after by the child’s grandparents or placed in a care unit in Obreja Hospital, where the child’s mother had been hospitalised. 41.  By a judgment of 28 September 2009 the Bucharest County Court, noting that the applicant’s son was temporarily deprived of his parents’ care, granted the DGSACP’s application for the child to be placed in a foster care centre until the identification of a family-type solution. 42.  By letter of 27 January 2010 the social work authorities charged with investigating the suitability of the child’s grandparents’ home informed the DGSACP that the child’s maternal grandparents were not willing to take care of the child. 43.  An appeal on points of law brought by the applicant against the judgment of 28 September 2009 was dismissed as devoid of merit by a final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 4 February 2010, on the basis that the applicant failed to submit a statement of appeal. 44.  By a judgment of 1 February 2011 the Bucharest County Court ordered, upon an application by the DGSACP, the substitution of the placement of the applicant’s son in a foster care centre with his temporary placement with a foster parent (asistent maternal). Before the court, the applicant contested the DGSACP’s application and asked the court to order that his son be cared for in a foster care centre until his release from prison. The court considered that the child’s best interests would be better served by his temporary placement with a foster parent, which, in its opinion, would offer better prospects of ensuring the child’s education and well-being in comparison with a foster care centre. Consequently, the court made an order allowing M.D., the foster parent, to exercise parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the applicant’s son, and the mayor of Bucharest to exercise parental rights in respect of the child’s property. 45.  An appeal on points of law brought by the applicant against the judgment of 1 February 2011 was dismissed as devoid of merit by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 8 March 2011, on the basis that the applicant had failed to lodge a statement of appeal. 46.  On 5 September 2011, after his release from Jilava Prison on 23 August 2011, the applicant asked the DGSACP for permission to visit his son on a regular basis. The authorities granted his request. According to the most recent information provided by the Government on 24 January 2013, the applicant had been able to visit his son regularly, usually once every fortnight, at the DGSACP’s premises. Visits had taken place on 9 September, 23 September, 7 October, 21 October and 2 November 2011, when, according to the minutes drafted by the authorities, the applicant had showed a lot of love and affection to his son, who also enjoyed getting to see his father. The DGSACP informed the Romanian Government Agent that, on 7 May 2012 and 8 January 2013, the applicant had declared his willingness to regain parental rights and responsibilities in respect of his son provided that he would benefit from social assistance payments, which would allow him, on the one hand, to repair his house, the condition of which had deteriorated while he had been in prison, and, on the other hand, to be able to pay the costs of boarding school for his son and any urgent transportation of his son which might possibly occur. The DGSACP also informed the Government Agent that it would continue to support the development of the relationship between the applicant and his son and that it would seek and support the return of the child to the applicant’s care as soon as circumstances permitted it.