CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 20 May 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50648/13 Vasile ISTRATE against Romania lodged on 30 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vasile Istrate, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Iaşi Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Popa, a lawyer practising in Bacău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant was arrested on 16 December 2002 and released pending trial on 12   February 2003. On 20 January 2003 the Anti-corruption department of the Prosecutor’s Office indicted forty-two persons, members of the management of Bank T. (Bacău Branch) and business men (including the applicant) for various acts of unlawful crediting ( activitate de creditare ilicită ). On 4 February 2003 the Bacău County Court remitted the case back to the prosecutor’s office due to procedural errors in the prosecution. On 12 February the Bacău Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor, quashed the County Court’s decision and sent the case back to that court to continue the trial. The County Court took the case back. It heard evidence from the defendants, several witnesses and experts; it ordered expert evaluations of various aspects of the case and received documents as evidence. From 9 November 2006 to 13 November 2007 the examination of the case was suspended and the case was sent to the Constitutional Court for examination of a constitutional complaint raised by one of the other defendants. The County Court convicted the applicant for fraud ( înşelăciune ), sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay damages to Bank T. The County Court rendered its decision on 20 June 2010. The parties appealed and the Bacău Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 13 December 2011. The main sentence imposed on the applicant remained unchanged. In addition, he was forbidden from becoming associate in companies for a period of three years after the execution of the main prison sentence. All parties appealed on points of law. The High Court of Cassation and Justice rendered its final decision on 13 December 2012. It reduced the applicant’s prison sentence to three years and four months in prison. B.     Conditions of detention On 1 March 2013 the applicant was arrested and taken to Bacău Prison to serve his sentence. On 12 April 2013 he was transferred to Tulcea Prison, on June 2013 to Vaslui Prison, and finally from there he was sent to Iaşi Prison where he is currently held. Although the applicant is not a smoker, he had to share his cells with smokers until 15 July 2013. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was held in prison in the same cell with smokers although he does not smoke. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the situation of passive smoking, in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide information on the material conditions of the applicant’s detention and the rules on smoking in prison.   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?