CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8B6082D6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:39.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 56449/11 Mihai CORFARU against Romania lodged on 29 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mihai Corfaru, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Barcea Mare Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant was arrested on 12 April 2010 and charged with aggravated theft, together with four other persons. He was accused of stealing in the evening of 11   April   2010 with the four   other persons 110 litres of fuel from a truck after unsuccessfully trying to steal fuel from another truck parked nearby. By a judgment of the Mediaş District Court of 10 June 2010 the applicant was sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal seeking to obtain the change of the legal classification of the offence from theft to attempted theft. On 8   November   2010 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. 2.   The applicant’s criminal complaint against the judges of the Mediaş   District   Court The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the judges of the Mediaş   District   Court for abuse of authority on account of their refusal to change the legal classification of the offence he was charged with from theft to attempted theft. On 5   July 2011 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Alba   Iulia Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint as unfounded. 3.   Conditions of detention The applicant started his detention in Aiud Prison, where he spent eight months. Afterwards, on an unspecified date, he was transferred to Barcea   Mare Prison. (a)     Aiud Prison The applicant claims that there were six prisoners in a cell of 10   square   metres. (b)     Barcea Mare Prison The applicant complains that the conditions in prison are unbearable; there are thirty persons in one cell measuring 45   square   meters. He also complains of the poor quality of food and improper conditions of hygiene. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in Aiud and Barcea Mare Prisons. 2.     Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention he complains in substance about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him and of the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the judges of the Mediaş   District   Court. QUESTION Are the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Aiud and Barcea   Mare Prisons in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations regarding the overcrowding, hygiene conditions and quality of food? The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the size of the respective cells; the number of the detainees in the respective cells at the time the applicant was detained and the facilities available.