CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 60272/09 Iosif Gabriel RUPA and Rita TOMPI against Romania lodged on 4 November 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Iosif Gabriel Rupa and Ms Rita Tompi, are Romanian nationals. The first applicant was born in 1992 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Aiud Prison, while the second applicant is his mother and lives in Aiud. They are represented before the Court by Mr Ioan Lazăr, a lawyer practising in Alba-Iulia. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 24 October 2008, having been charged with multiple thefts, together with several other accused. He was 15 years old at the time. His pre-trial detention was regularly extended by interlocutory judgments of the Alba Iulia District Court, on 5 November, 20 November, 8 and 22 December 2008 and 9   February, 30 March, 27 April, 18 May, 15 June and 21 September 2009. The reasons adduced by the district court were that, although he was a minor, there was reasonable suspicion that he was guilty of those multiple thefts and that he would pose a danger to public order, taking into account that he had developed a habit of stealing. His age was not considered to be an argument in favour of his release pending trial. Furthermore, in one of the interlocutory judgments it was mentioned that he did not have any occupation or place of work and thus would be unable to support himself by honest means: therefore there was a risk that he would continue to commit thefts. It appears that the first applicant’s lawyer indicated that his mother and uncle had made written statements, according to which they would take responsibility for supervising him if released, and they presented to the file a job offer that the applicant could take up if released. The applicant was eventually convicted of theft and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by a first-instance judgment of the Alba Iulia District Court on 23 November 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 160 h of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the time of events, provided that for minors aged between 14 and 16 pre­trial detention could be extended only on an exceptional basis. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that the first applicant’s pre-trial detention was unreasonably long and that the domestic courts had provided stereotyped reasoning for maintaining him in detention and without taking into account the arguments which had been raised by the   applicants in support of releasing him pending trial. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the first applicant’s age at the time and to the reasoning of the domestic courts, was the length of his pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 § 3 of the Convention (see Nart v. Turkey , no. 20817/04, §§ 30-35, 6 May 2008)? The Government are invited to submit copies of all the interlocutory judgments by which the first applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended and the appeal decisions delivered.