5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Arad.
6.  By a final decision of 21 March 2001 the Arad District Court convicted the applicant of rape of a minor and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s detention started on 21 January 2001 and lasted until 24 May 2011, when he was released from prison on probation. On 11 July 2013 the applicant was again detained, following a new conviction for the rape of two girls who were minors, and was incarcerated in Colibaşi Prison.
7.  In his letters to the Court, the applicant contended that in Arad and Timişoara Prisons he had been kept in overcrowded cells.
8.  Despite the fact that he was a non-smoker, he had had to share a cell with smokers. He lodged several complaints with the domestic authorities in this respect, claiming that he had health problems because of the smoke he had inhaled from his inmates’ cigarettes. By a final decision of 12 April 2005, the Arad County Court allowed one of the applicant’s complaints and ordered the placement of the applicant in a non-smoking cell. From the information submitted by the applicant it is not clear whether that decision was enforced, but based on his written observations it could be inferred that he had been placed in a non-smoking cell.
9.  Moreover, the applicant alleged that he had been transferred from one prison to another or from prison to court in vans with detainees who smoked.
10.  The applicant was mostly detained in Arad Prison, where he spent more than eight years. The prison authorities took into account the fact that the applicant had been convicted of the rape of a minor and for most of his stay he had therefore been placed alone in an individual cell of 10.40 square metres.
11.  The applicant was detained in Timişoara Prison on several occasions, for five hundred and sixty days in total. On these occasions he was detained in the medical unit of the prison or in cells used for transit.
According to the information provided by the National Prison Administration and forwarded to the Court by the Government, the applicant was held in the following cells:
- cell no. 1 measuring 19.69 square metres, containing eight beds (that is 2.46 square metres per bed);
- cell no. 6 measuring 19.78 square metres, containing three beds (that is 6.59 square metres per bed);
- cell no. 7 measuring 17.71 square metres containing three beds (that is 5.90 square metres per bed);
- cell no. 12 measuring 7.60 square metres containing three beds (that is 2.53 square metres per bed);
- cell no 35 neasuring 20.84 square metres containing ten beds (that is 2.08 square metres per bed);
- cell no. 45 measuring 46. 22 square metres containing nineteen beds (that is 2.43 square metres per bed);
- and cell no. 66 measuring 21.16 square metres containing nine beds (that is 2.35 square metres per bed).
12.  The Government did not provide any information concerning either the number of the detainees who had occupied the cells or the time spent by the applicant in each of the above-mentioned cells.
13.  The Government submitted that both prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation. Both prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in the winter. All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite furniture.
14.  Cold water had always been available and hot water was available daily according to a schedule approved by the prison authorities.
15.  Concerning the hygiene in the cell, the Government submitted that prisoners had been responsible for cleaning the cells and were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration.
16.  The applicant had been transferred between the prison facilities in vehicles fitted with windows, lights, heating and sunroofs. These vehicles had had between sixteen and thirty-eight seats. Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers, and the applicant had anyway been transported separately from smokers.