CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sFA5EFAA0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 42820/09 Remus TUDOR against Romania lodged on 3 August 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Remus Tudor, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1966. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1990 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has since been imprisoned in several detention facilities. He has served his sentence in various Romanian prisons, and is currently being detained in Jilava Prison. The applicant was detained in Rahova Prison for almost ten years. The actual periods of imprisonment ran from June 1999 to February 2009. 1.     Legal proceedings initiated by the applicant in connection with his alleged exposure to high-frequency radiation On 12 October 2008, while the applicant was serving his   sentence in Rahova Prison, he lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences attached to Rahova Prison (“post ‑ sentencing judge”), alleging that the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RFR) emitted from an antenna in the prison had negatively affected his health. In his complaint, the applicant indicated that, since 2003 the entire prison staff had received an extra salary allowance for working in dangerous conditions, namely exposure to electromagnetic fields in their working environment. By a decision of 4 November 2008 the post-sentencing judge rejected the complaint on all grounds. It was observed that the applicant had never complained of specific effects resulting from electromagnetic radiation, nor had he sought medical treatment. The judge also ruled on the basis of an expert study for which the National Institute of Forensic Science (INEC) had been commissioned in order to analyse the electromagnetic field allegedly surrounding the prison’s wireless communication base station. The report issued on 3   October 2008 revealed that in several areas in the prison the levels of radiation were higher than those prescribed in the relevant safety guidelines, but that exposure was lower in areas to which the prisoners had access. The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted as evidence the 2007 Radiocom report which revealed that while radiation levels from the wireless communication device varied between prison areas, they were nevertheless higher than the regulatory standards currently in place. His request for a new expert report to establish the level of radiation at that time (February 2009) was also rejected as useless. His request to have the prison’s doctor and a radiologist heard was also rejected as useless. On 16 February 2009 the Bucharest District   Court dismissed his appeal upholding the decision of the post-sentencing judge on the same reasons. 2.     Information and guidelines issued by the relevant authorities concerning exposure to high-frequency radiation The applicant submitted a report of 19 November 2007 issued by the National Radio Communication Authority. According to the report, power density measurements were taken in all of the prison’s living areas and the results disclosed an exposure to high-frequency radiation which was higher than the allowable standards, that is, a maximum of ten   watts per square metre (W/m²). The safety guideline indicated above is cited as a reference level in Order   no.   1193 of the Ministry for Public Health of 29 September 2006 on the general norms concerning the limits of public exposure to electromagnetic fields ranging from 0 hertz (Hz) to 300   gigahertz   (GHz). The order is based on the Council of the European Union’s Recommendation   no.   1999/519/EC of 12   July   1999. Subsequent to the installation of the antenna, the prison staff had been awarded a specific allowance for the health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation during their working hours. The allowances had been awarded by two Orders of the Minister of Justice, no. 945/C of 2 April 2003 and no. 399/C of 6   February   2007. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant submits that his exposure to 168 hours of radiation per week amounts to ill ‑ treatment. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention about the absence of any compensation awarded to him for the exposure to radiation, in contrast to the allowance awarded to the prison staff. 3.     He further complains under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the court of first instance refused to hear the witnesses proposed by him, thus infringing the guarantees of a fair trial, as secured under this provision. QUESTION Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, as well as his right to procedural safeguards in this area, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, as a result of his being permanently exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted by the antenna installed in Rahova Prison? The Government are invited to submit information whether any periodical assessments of the level of the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation were conducted inside the prison and especially in the areas used by the prisoners.