I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MAIER v. ROMANIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2021-03-16
• Communication date: 2014-04-17
• Application number(s): 39523/13
• Country:   ROU
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 35
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
  Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.66695
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Felix Maier, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1975 and is, since 28 March 2013, serving a prison sentence in Târgu-Jiu, Craiova, Colibași and Giurgiu prisons.
A.
Conditions of detention He describes as follows the conditions of detention in Târgu-Jiu Prison where he was held at least until 19 August 2013: he was held in a cell with 80 other persons where beds were superposed on three levels.
Sometimes additional inmates were brought in and they had to share beds.
There was no space for any furniture in the cell and hardly any room to move between the rows of beds.
The mattresses were old, dirty and infested with bedbugs.
The room had two windows but they could not be opened as they were blocked by the rows of bunk beds.
Inmates were allowed to smoke in the cell, despite them being held along with non-smoker.
Food was served in the cell, and the inmates had to eat it sitting in their beds or standing.
They had to wash their plates in the small washing room attached to the cell.
That room had 3 sq.
m and was provided with two showers, two sinks and two toilets.
Hot water was only available three times per week, for thirty minutes each, which rendered it impossible for all detainees to take showers.
In addition, the inmates were working in the room, making shoes.
Sacks of shoes were brought to their cell twice per week and were kept in beds.
The inmates worked day and night mostly in their beds.
There was no possibility to air the cell, so the inmates were breathing toxic fumes from the shoe making.
The inmates were not provided with sufficient clothing and hygiene products and therefore ended up sharing personal items such as nail clippers, razors, soap and towels.
The applicant had no family to provide extra products or money to allow him to buy more for himself.
The prison administration was not sensible to his particular situation and he ended up working for his fellow inmates for extra money (cleaning in their place, massaging them, washing their clothes).
The prison administration did not provide him with sufficient envelopes and paper to write his petitions and he was allegedly advised to give up his intention to lodge the current application and it would remain a futile complaint.
Lastly, the inmates had no access to information as the television sets were switched off during the times when the news were transmitted (from 7 am to 9 am, from noon to 3pm and from 7pm to 8 pm) each day.
The applicant’s complaints to that effect went unanswered.
B.
Medical care in prison During detention the applicant contracted several illnesses, including consumption, ulcer, renal infection and type C hepatitis.
From 25 February 2013 to 11 March 2013 the applicant received treatment for hepatitis in Colibaşi Prison hospital.
He was then released and prescribed out-patient treatment, but for two month (from 11 March to 10 May 2013) could not receive it.
The prison doctors invoked lack of resources to buy the medicine.
The applicant complained about the lack of medical treatment under Law no.
275/2006 on the execution of sentences.
The post-sentencing judge dismissed the complaint and the applicant appealed before the Târgu Jiu District Court.
The court sought information about the treatment administered to the applicant, but the Târgu Jiu prison medical office could not provide it, as the applicant had been meanwhile transferred to Colibaşi Prison.
The court considered that the facts were well established and proceeded to examining the complaint based on the evidence already in the file.
It established that a delay in the administration of treatment did not constitute a measure capable of breaching the applicant’s rights.
For this reason, the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, in a final decision rendered on 3 September 2013.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention and the alleged lack of medical treatment in prison.