CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super }   Communicated on 25 August 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67482/14 Vincent LEBOIS against Bulgaria lodged on 11 October 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the 1 st District Police Directorate in Sofia, the Sofia Investigation Detention Facility and Sofia Prison, the alleged failure of the authorities to provide him with timely medical care in relation to a staphylococcus infection and the restrictions on his personal and telephone contacts, while in detention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the 1 st   District Police Directorate, Sofia, from 24 to 25 January 2014, the Sofia Investigation Detention Facility from 25 January to 18 April 2014 and Sofia Prison from 18 to 23 April 2014 amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in view, in particular, of his allegations of the lack of access to food, water or a toilet during his police custody and of the personal space available in the cells, the sanitary conditions, the availability of an adequate outdoor exercise area and the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to provide him with a change of clothes, proper bedding, personal hygiene products and sufficient access to a shower during his subsequent detention?   2.     Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities of the applicant’s staphylococcus infection amount to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular did the authorities put unlawful or disproportionate restrictions on the applicant’s personal and telephone contacts considering his allegations that he was allowed personal visits only twice a month, was not allowed any telephone contact during the first two weeks of his detention and subsequently had difficulties in obtaining a telephone card?