CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D419EF6 { width:141.06pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s45C8AC8B { width:146.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 27670/18 Oleg PRUTEANU against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   June 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Diana Sârcu, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   27670/18) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 June 2018 by a Moldovan national, Mr Oleg Pruteanu, who was born in 1977 and is detained in Chișinău (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr G. Malic and Mr V. Vieru, lawyers practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 § 2 and Article 8 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was held in custody pending trial on charges of heading a criminal organisation specialised in smuggling drugs. After his arrest, the head of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, Mr   N.C., made the following statement in an interview to the national television: “In so far as [the applicant] alias Borman, is concerned, he is accused of having committed several offences related to the unlawful circulation of drugs and of delivering hashish from North Africa, Spain and Portugal to the Russian Federation. We have recently received from the Russian Federation the materials of the criminal case and our certainty concerning the charges against [the applicant] and his group has seriously strengthened. The Russian authorities conducted a very serious work in investigating their activity in the Russian Federation.” During the eight months of his pre-trial detention, the applicant’s wife requested on several occasions to be allowed a conjugal visit to the applicant, but without success. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT In view of similar complaints concerning poor conditions of detention, in 2019 the Court decided to join this application with forty-one other applications (see Bulgacov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (dcc.) [committee], nos. 54187/15 and 41 other applications, 19 March 2019) and declared the applications partially inadmissible. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other forty-one and to examine it separately. The applicant complained that the statements made by Mr N.C. in the interview to the national television amounted to a breach of his right to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He also argued that the refusal to allow him to have conjugal visits from his wife during his pre-trial detention amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The Government disagreed and argued that the complaints were inadmissible. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law concerning the presumption of innocence (see, among others, Maksim Savov v.   Bulgaria , no. 28143/10, §§ 69-70, 13 October 2020) and to the general principles concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Balan v.   Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012). In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 is concerned, the Court recalls that, according to its case-law, a distinction must be made between statements which reflect the feeling that the person concerned is guilty and those which merely describe a state of suspicion; the former violate the presumption of innocence, while the latter are considered to be in conformity with the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Marziano v. Italy , no. 45313/99, § 31, 28 November 2002). The Court notes that the language employed by Mr N.C. is rather part of the context of the latter hypothesis, since it does not suggest that he regarded the applicant as being guilty. He stated that the applicant was accused of having committed the offences imputed to him and nothing in the impugned statements allows the Court to conclude that he regarded him as being guilty. As to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant failed to challenge the refusal to grant him conjugal visits with his wife in accordance with Articles 289-299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, if needed, in accordance with Article 313 of the same Code. The Court considers therefore that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined ; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 June 2022.   {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Hasan Bakırcı   Branko Lubarda   Registrar   President