CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 11 July 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 257/14 Sănducu BARBU against Romania lodged on 12 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sănducu Barbu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1977 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Târgu Jiu Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant complains that for eight days, between 1 October and 9   October   2013, he did not have an individual bed and therefore he was forced to sleep on the cold floor. Consequently, the renal disease, from which he was suffering, re-activated. He submitted a medical certificate stating that on 23 September 2012 he had been hospitalised in the Nephrology Department of Slatina Hospital because of a renal colic. On 2 October 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the post ‑ sentencing judge asking for an individual bed. His complaint was examined on 15 October 2013. The applicant informed the judge that he eventually had received a bed but only after nine days. The post-sentencing judge took note of the applicant’s complaint without drafting an interlocutory judgment. 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. 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 of the post-sentencing judge in connection with his complaint. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged inhuman conditions of detention in cell no. 5 of Târgu-Jiu Prison, namely about the lack of an individual bed for eight days. He also claims that his renal disease aggravated because of his sleeping on the cold floor. He complains in substance under Article 6 § 1 about lack of access to a court. In this respect he alleges that his complaint for compensation with the Tâgu-Jiu District Court was not examined on the merits because the post ‑ sentencing judge did not issue an interlocutory judgment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of an individual bed for a period of eight days in Tâgu Jiu Prison? 2.     Did the applicant benefit from the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the Gorj District Court did not proceed to the examination of the merits of his claim for compensation due to reasons non-attributable to the applicant?