OANCEA v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicants, Mr Ion Oancea and Ms Doina-Ligia Oancea, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Ciulniţa, Argeş County. They were represented before the Court by Mr G.A. Vasile, a lawyer practising in Piteşti. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. M.C., the applicants’ thirty-year-old son, was HIV-positive and was registered as such by Matei Balş Hospital, where he received monthly treatment. 5. On 14 August 2007 M.C. was arrested together with his two brothers and his brother-in-law and placed in Argeş Police detention facilities. He was in good shape at that time, but the tests run after his arrest showed that he had had a slow reaction to his retroviral treatment (aderență scazută la tratament). He spent most of his pre-trial detention in Colibaşi Prison Hospital. 6. During his pre-trial detention, M.C. received treatment for his illness, except for three periods of respectively four, two and one, days when the medicine did not reach the prison hospitals on time. As his health deteriorated and he started complaining of severe back pain, he was taken for a consultation in a civilian hospital. The doctor recommended treatment with ointments and, if the pain did not subside, surgery. According to the statements made by his cellmates, including his brothers, the treatment was delayed by a few days and had to be administered by the inmates, who took turns in applying the ointments and hot water to the painful areas. As the treatment proved to be ineffective, M.C. requested an operation, which took place on 21 October 2008 in Bagdazar Arsenie Civilian Hospital. 7. M.C.’s official prison record submitted by the Government does not contain any complaint by M.C. to the post-sentencing judge about the medical treatment. 8. On 22 October 2008 M.C. was released from prison, based on a decision rendered by the Piteşti Court of Appeal. On 11 November 2008 he was admitted to a civilian hospital with similar symptoms as before (severe back pain and generally deteriorating health). He remained in the hospital until 22 December when he was declared incurable and released at the family’s request. He died on 23 December 2008. 9. On 3 August 2009 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, against the administration and the medical personnel of Colibaşi Prison, accusing them of having intentionally postponed their son’s surgical operation, which led to his death. They argued that the operation was delayed intentionally by the prison authorities, who received significant financial benefits as additional bonuses to their salaries while dealing with an HIV-positive inmate: a 75 % salary increase for prison administrators and a 100 % salary increase for medical personnel. 10. From the records submitted by the Government, it appears that, at the applicants’ request, the prosecutor’s office informed them on 30 September 2009 that an investigation into the matter was pending. 11. According to the information provided by the Government, the complaint was examined by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Piteşti Court of Appeal which, based on the evidence gathered, in particular statements by the applicants and the patient’s medical record, decided not to prosecute the medical personnel and the prison director. The decision was rendered on 22 March 2010 and communicated to the applicants on 1 April 2010. The applicants did not appeal against the prosecutor’s decision before the criminal courts. 12. In paragraphs 43-45 of the judgment Dumitru Popescu (no. 1) v. Romania (no. 49234/99, 26 April 2007) there is a description of the law concerning complaints against decisions of the prosecutor lodged under Article 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable at the date of the facts of the present case. 13. The judgment delivered in Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania (no. 32146/05, §§ 41-54, 16 February 2010) describes in detail the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the civil liability of medical staff. 14. Excerpts from Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences concerning the rights of detainees and the remedies provided therein are summarised in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§ 113119, 24 July 2012).