5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Milcovățu. In 2008 he was convicted of burglary and served a sentence of imprisonment until 30 August 2011, when he was conditionally released.
6.  Between 2007 and 2009 the applicant completed the last two years of his primary education (grades III and IV) in Rahova Prison, within the framework of the “Second Chance” educational programme for prisoners.
7.  Following a transfer to Jilava Prison, between May and August 2010 the applicant lodged three requests with the prison administration, asking to be enrolled in secondary education (the educational stage corresponding to grades V-VIII) as a fifth grade student.
8.  On 29 July 2010 the Jilava prison governor wrote to the Ilfov County Schools Inspectorate (“the schools inspectorate”) pointing out that, under legislation enacted earlier that year (see paragraph 16 below), prisoners were required to receive compulsory education. He included information on the number and educational levels of the prisoners concerned and asked the schools inspectorate to consider the possibilities available to them to complete their compulsory education. In a reply of 24 August 2010 the schools inspectorate notified the prison governor that a class had been set up at School No. 1 in Jilava (“the school”) for primary education and that, as regards secondary education, it was necessary to submit, to the same school, the documents necessary for the prisoners’ enrolment, as required by ministerial Order no. 4370/2000 on part-time secondary education (see paragraph 18 below).
9.  In the meantime, the prison administration informed the applicant that his request to be enrolled had been considered and that he was required to provide his academic record from his previous school. On 2 September 2010 the applicant gave his written consent for the prison administration to request his academic record.
10.  On 21 September 2010 Jilava Prison and the school signed a collaboration protocol concerning the education of prisoners at primary and secondary level in the academic year 2010/2011. Following this, on 28 October 2010 the prison governor wrote to the school asking to be informed of the starting date of the secondary education courses. The letter also stated that the schools inspectorate had given its approval for the courses to be organised on the prison premises, that the conditions for organising them had been met, and that additional documents concerning the prisoners’ previous education were to be sent to the school once they became available.
11.  On the same day the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge delegated to supervise the observance of prisoners’ rights (“the post‑sentencing judge”), alleging that the prison administration had violated his right to education. At a hearing of 29 October 2010 he stated that the prison administration had approved his request to be allowed to study, but had informed him that no teacher wished to teach in the prison.
12.  While the proceedings before the post-sentencing judge were ongoing, in a letter of 4 November 2010 the school informed the prison administration that the prisoners’ enrolment applications did not contain the necessary documents, as required by ministerial Order no. 4370/2000 (see paragraph 18 below). The letter also pointed out, without reference to any individual situation, that academic records had been submitted in respect of only five of the sixteen prisoners who had requested to be enrolled. It then listed the number of prisoners who could potentially be enrolled in grades VI to VIII and concluded that it was not possible to arrange for teachers to teach each subject to a class containing only one student, as was the case in respect of grade VII. The letter also stated that the schools inspectorate had been notified accordingly.
13.  In a decision of 16 November 2010 the post-sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The decision stated that the Education Act and the Execution of Sentences Act (see paragraphs 15‑16 below) imposed a positive obligation on prison administrations, together with the educational authorities, to ensure prisoners’ access to compulsory education. The prison administration had taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the applicant and other prisoners had access to secondary education in prison, in accordance with the law. In particular, it had duly approached the competent institutions, and on 29 October 2010 it had sent the school the applicant’s and other prisoners’ study documents and academic records. Therefore, the applicant’s inability to pursue his studies was not imputable to the prison administration, but to the insufficient number of students, which constituted an impediment to the establishment of a class for secondary education.
14.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He argued that prison administrations were under a clear legal obligation to ensure prisoners’ access to secondary education, irrespective of their number. On 12 January 2011 the Bucharest County Court gave a final judgment which upheld the ruling made by the post-sentencing judge. It concluded that the applicant’s inability to continue his studies had been due to a situation outside of everyone’s control, namely an insufficient number of students to set up a class in accordance with the law.