CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 51012/11 Valerian DRAGOMIR against Romania lodged on 3 August 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Valerian Dragomir, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Timişoara. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The background of the case In February 2011 the National Anticorruption Directorate (“the   DNA”) initiated a large scale criminal investigation against almost one hundred police and customs officers for corruption related offences. According to the charge, between October 2010 and January   2011 a criminal group was formed at the Moraviţa and Foeni border checkpoints controlled by the Timiş County Border Police Inspectorate (PCTF). Its   members were involved in acts of corruption and smuggling in cigarettes from Serbia. The applicant was a customs office at the Moraviţa border checkpoint at that time and was considered to be part of the criminal group by the investigation authority. On 3 February 2011 a criminal investigation was initiated against him for suspected adhering to a criminal group and bribery. 2.     The applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention On 8 February 2011 police officers belonging to the DNA carried out a search at the applicant’s home. The search started at 6 a.m. and lasted about three hours. At about 9 a.m. the police officers informed the applicant that an order to appear before the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service (“the   NAP”) had been issued on his behalf. At 9.15 a.m. he was taken to the headquarters of the Timiş   County   Police   Inspectorate. At about 2 p.m., he was embarked with one hundred other police and customs officers on a bus trip to the NAP’s headquarters in Bucharest. He alleged that during their trip to Bucharest he could not get off the bus and could not use his mobile phone or contact his lawyer. At about 9.30 p.m., after a trip of almost 600 km they arrived in Bucharest, at NAP’s headquarters. The applicant alleged that he was kept in a room under permanent supervision and that he could not have any contact with his lawyer. He also claimed that he was neither allowed to go and purchase food nor was offered food; he was just allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet or smoke a cigarette. After almost thirteen hours, at 10.30 a.m., on 9   February   2011, he was taken to the prosecutor’s office. He was informed in the presence of his   lawyer about the charges against him. The applicant alleges that he refused to give a statement on the ground that he was very tired after a sleep deprivation for more than thirty   hours. At about 10.55 a.m. he was informed of the prosecutor’s order to remand him in custody for twenty ‑ four   hours. According to the applicant, he was kept standing in a corridor until 8   p.m. At about 8 p.m. he was taken to the Bucharest Court   of   Appeal for the examination of the prosecutor’s request concerning his pre ‑ trial detention. The hearing started at 10.30 p.m. and lasted almost one hour. The court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant for twenty-nine days, namely from 9   February until 10   March   2011. The reasons adduced by the court to justify the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention were the existence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the alleged crimes, the gravity and nature of the alleged crimes. The applicant was taken to the detention facility of the Bucharest Police   Station. The appeal lodged by the applicant against his pre-trial detention was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 14   February   2011. On 2 March and 4 April 2011 respectively, the Bucharest Court   of   Appeal ordered the extension of the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of the charge, the strong suspicion that the offences had been committed and the continuous nature of the offences. It also stressed that the applicant had acted in his capacity of customs officer when he had allegedly committed the offences. It concluded that the public order would be shocked if the applicant and the other customs and police officers were to be released. In assessing the concrete danger for the public order of the applicant’s release from detention, the court stressed that the facts were allegedly committed by an important number of perpetrators during a long period of time, that the facts were repetitive and the perpetrators were customs and police officers in charge with the protection of legal order. On 9 March and 8   April 2011 respectively, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the extension of his   detention upholding the interlocutory judgments of the Bucharest Court   of   Appeal without additional reasons. On 3 May 2011 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility of the Timişoara Police Station. On 6 May 2011 the Timişoara Court of Appeal ordered his release from detention. The appeal lodged by the prosecutor was dismissed by the High   Court of Cassation and Justice on 7   May   2011. The applicant was released from detention on 8   May   2011 after three   months of detention. The proceedings on the merits are still pending. 3.     The applicant’s conditions of detention on the premises of the Bucharest Police Station detention facility The applicant claims that he was placed in a cell of 16   square   metres, which he shared with seven other detainees. He also complains about the improper conditions of hygiene. According to the applicant, the toilet and the shower were not separated from the living area by any partition, offering no privacy. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions of the CCP concerning the warrant to appear, police custody and pre-trial detention are set out in Creangă   v.   Romania ([GC], no. 29226/03, § 58, 23 February 2012). Excerpts from the relevant international and domestic reports concerning the situation in Romanian prisons are given in Iacov   Stanciu   v.   Romania , (no.   35972/05, §§ 125-129, 4   July   2012). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no legal basis for his detention from 9.30 p.m. on 8   February   2011 to 10.30   a.m. on 9 February 2011. In this respect he claims that a person deprived of liberty on the basis of an order to appear should be immediately brought before the investigation body and heard. 2.     Relying on substance on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, he claims that the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not provide sufficient reasons for his   pre-trial detention and the two subsequent extensions of his detention. 3.     Under Article 3 of the Convention he complains about the conditions of his detention on the premises of the Bucharest Police Station detention facility, mainly of overcrowding and improper conditions of hygiene. QUESTIONS 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the   Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty for approximately thirteen hours which started at 9.30 p.m. on 8   February   2011 and lasted until 10.30 a.m. on 9 February 2011 fall within sub ‑ paragraph   (b)   or (c) of this provision?   2.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention on the premises of the Bucharest Police Station detention facility in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations regarding the overcrowding and hygiene conditions? The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the size of the cell occupied by the applicant and the facilities available.