CASE OF BARBU v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
4. The applicant was born in 1977. He has served sentences in several prisons. On 21 April 2015 he was released from Târgu-Jiu Prison. 5. The applicant alleged that while detained in cell no. 5 of TârguJiu Prison for eight days, between 1 October and 9 October 2013, he had not had an individual bed and had therefore been forced to sleep on the cold floor on two blankets. As a consequence, the renal disease from which he suffered had been re-activated and he had experienced intense pain. 6. On 3 October 2013 he had been examined by a prison doctor and had been prescribed medical treatment. However, he had been unable to submit any evidence in this connection as the prison authorities had rejected his requests for a copy of his medical records. He submitted instead an old medical certificate stating that on 23 September 2012 he had been hospitalised in the Nephrology Department of Slatina Hospital suffering from renal colic. 7. The applicant lodged a complaint with the postsentencing judge asking for an individual bed. 8. His complaint was examined on 15 October 2013. The applicant informed the judge that he had eventually been given a bed, but only after nine days. The post-sentencing judge took note that the applicant had obtained an individual bed; he did not draft an interlocutory judgment, but merely noted that the complaint had been withdrawn. 9. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Gorj District Court seeking compensation in connection with the lack of an individual bed for eight days in cell no. 5 of Târgu-Jiu Prison. 10. On 12 November 2013 the Târgu-Jiu District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible without examining its merits on account of the fact that the applicant had not submitted an interlocutory judgment by the post-sentencing judge in connection with his complaint.