THIRD SECTION
Application no. 29343/10
Cristian EPISTATU 
against Romania
lodged on 6 May 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Cristian Epistatu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1990. He is currently detained in Jilava Prison.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 December 2008 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant, who was a last year high-school student at the time, on the basis of medical, forensic, documentary and testimonial evidence for attempted aggravated murder and referred his case to the Bucharest County Court.
By a judgment of 12 March 2009 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five and a half years of imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
By a judgment of 9 November 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment.
By a final judgment of 5 March 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded.
On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s father asked the warden of Rahova Prison on behalf of the applicant to allow him to complete his last year of high-school which he had to abandon after his imprisonment or to attend programs teaching a trade or a profession. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant received an answer to his request.
In a letter of 6 October 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he repeatedly asked the wardens of the Craiova, Rahova and Jilava Prisons to either be allowed to complete his last year of high-school education or to be allowed to work. According to him, all his requests were denied because the prison authorities were temporarily unable to organise classes for last year high-school students, the courses teaching a trade or a profession were full and there were no vacancies for work. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant opened proceedings before domestic courts on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 (see “Relevant domestic law”) in respect of his requests concerning his right to education.
In a letter of 9 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he had been detained in Jilava Prison for almost a year and that the prison authorities dismissed repeatedly his requests seeking to be allowed to complete his high-school education. In addition, the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading. He contended that he was detained on Section VI in room 601 which was overcrowded. The said room was 40 sq.m. in size and housed 27 beds and 27 detainees. The room was squalid, infested with rats, lice, bed bugs and scab. During his detention in Jilava Prison he was diagnosed and treated for scab. Also he was repeatedly bitten by bed bugs. The detention room lacked heating in the winter and was extremely warm in the summer. The applicant was suffering from constant head aches and dizzy spells in the summer because of the overcrowded conditions, the high temperatures and the lack of ventilation and air in the room. Moreover, he did not have access to any sporting, cultural and educational activities.
In a letter of 18 July 2011 the applicant informed the Court that on 21 January 2009 he was diagnosed with gastroenteritis which according to him was caused by the poor food in Jilava Prison and the prison’s drinking water which was infested with bacteria. He also submitted his medical file attesting that he had been diagnosed and treated for gastroenteritis and scab.
B.  Relevant domestic law
Article 65 of Law no. 275/2006 provides inter alia that prisons organise primary, secondary and high-school classes. The classes are organised and held according to the rules set out by the Ministry of Education and Research together with the Ministry of Justice and by using teaching personnel provided and paid for by the local school inspectorate. The expenses resulted from schooling activities incur to the Ministry of Education and Research and to the National Administration of Prisons.
Articles 181 and 183 of the Rules of Enforcement of Law no. 275/2006 provide inter alia that schooling is mandatory for detainees who are minors, illiterate or young persons. The educational activities are held individually or in a group.
COMPLAINTS
1.  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that the material conditions of detention in Jilava Prison were inhuman and degrading in so far as the detention room was overcrowded, squalid and infested with rats, bed bugs, lice and scab, lacked ventilation, heating in the winter and was extremely warm in the summer. Moreover, the food was poor, the drinking water was infested with bacteria and he did not have access to sporting, cultural and educational activities.
2.  Invoking Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings opened against him in so far as the domestic courts wrongfully assessed the evidence, misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions and lacked impartiality.
3.  Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complains that his right to education was breached in so far as he was forced to discontinue the completion of his last year of high-school in order to serve his prison sentence and the Romanian prison authorities did not allow him to complete his high-school education in prison.
QUESTIONS
1.  Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison?

2.  The Government are invited to submit information concerning the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in Jilava Prison, specifically with regard to the applicant’s allegations of overcrowding; squalid rooms infested with rats, bed bugs, lice and scab, which also lacked ventilation heating in the winter and were extremely warm in the summer; poor food; drinking water infested with bacteria and lack of access to sporting, cultural and educational activities.

3.  Is Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable in respect of the applicant’s requests to be allowed to complete his high‑school education in prison?

4.  If so, was the applicant denied his right to education in prison, having regard to the prison authorities’ refusal to allow him to complete his high‑school education? Was the interference with the applicant’s right to education in prison in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1?

5.  Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in connection with his complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

6.  In particular, was Law no. 275/2006 an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to education in prison?