CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2015

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 17 June 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no. 66094/12 Piotr MOCIU against the Republic of Moldova and 4 other applications (see list appended) The list of the applicants is attached. The facts, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarized as follows. A.     Conditions of detention The first applicant was detained on remand for four months at the Comrat Police Station. The other four applicants were/have been in pre-trial detention in prison no. 13 in Chișinău for various periods of time (see the table below). According to the applicants, their conditions of detention were/have been inappropriate for the standards imposed by Article 3 (for specific complaints raised by each applicant, see the table below). B.     Lack of adequate medical assistance and dilatory examination of the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention in case no. 66094/12 On 3 August 2012, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 6 August 2012, the prosecutor applied for a warrant of the applicant’s detention in custody, and on the same day the Comrat District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for thirty days. The applicant was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention in the remand facility of the Comrat Police Station. On 7 August 2012, the applicant appealed against the arrest warrant. On 10 August 2012, he complained that his health state in detention worsened because of the gout he had been suffering from for several years, and asked to be examined by a doctor. On 13 August 2012, a rheumatologist saw the applicant in his cell and recommended an additional, more thorough examination at a hospital. It appears that the doctor’s recommendation was not considered. On 28 August 2012, the Cahul Court of Appeal examined the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In the court hearing, the applicant’s representative presented copies of the applicant’s medical records confirming the diagnosis “Acute decompensated gout” (Gută în stadiu decompensat în fază de acutizare). However, the court dismissed the applicant’s claims about his health condition as unsubstantiated, relying on the penitentiary medical assistant’s opinion that the applicant could receive adequate medical assistance in detention. On various dates, the Comrat Court of Appeal repeatedly extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention upon the prosecutor’s request in that respect. On 30 November 2012, the Comrat District Court ordered that the applicant be placed under house arrest. The applicant appealed. By its final decision of 10 December 2012, the Comrat Court of Appeal annulled the lower court’s decision, and imposed on the applicant a prohibition on leaving the country for thirty days. On 20 February 2013, the case was referred to the Comrat District Court for trial.   C.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention in case no. 75524/13 On 3 February 2012, the applicant (15 years and 7 months old at that moment) was arrested on suspicion of premeditated murder. On 4 February 2012, the prosecutor applied to the Rascani District Court for a warrant of the applicant’s detention in custody. The reasons relied upon by the prosecutor were generally that the applicant, not being married and having no permanent occupation, could abscond from prosecution and interfere with the criminal investigation. On the same day, the Rascani District Court issued an arrest warrant for thirty days relying on the reasons provided by the prosecutor. In court, the applicant argued that she had no intention of absconding and was willing to cooperate with the prosecution. She asked to be placed under house arrest rather than being detained in a prison. Nevertheless, the court, having cited the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code entitling it to remand a person under the risk of absconding and of interfering with criminal investigation, concluded that the applicant presented such risks because she was charged with an extremely serious offence. The applicant was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention in prison no. 13 in Chișinău. The prosecutor requested the extension of applicant’s detention pending investigation on several occasions, reiterating the same reasons. By final decisions of 4 March 2012, 29 March 2012 and 27 April 2012, the Rascani District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, each time by thirty days, relying on the same grounds as before. On 17 May 2012, the case was referred to the Centru District Court for trial. In the indictment bill the applicant was charged with robbery. On different dates, the prosecutor requested the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial, each time for ninety days. By final decisions of the Centru District Court dated 31 May 2012, 23 August 2012, 15   November 2012, and 1 February 2013, as well as of the Chisinau Court of Appeal dated 31 May 2013 and 14 August 2013, the applicant’s detention pending trial was extended each time by ninety days, on the same grounds as in the previous decisions.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that their conditions of detention were inhuman. 2.     In application no. 66094/12, the applicant also complains under Article   3 of a failure to provide him with the medical treatment required by his condition. 3.     In application no. 75524/13, the applicant complains under Article 5 §   3 of the Convention that the courts’ decisions were contrary to domestic law because they did not give relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending her pre-trial detention or when dismissing her habeas corpus requests. 4.     In application no. 66094/12, the applicant complains under Article 5 §   4 of the Convention of the dilatory examination of his habeas corpus request. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants held in inhuman or degrading conditions of detention?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint as to the inhuman or degrading conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 3.     Was the applicant in application no. 66094/12 provided with the requisite medical assistance while in detention, in accordance with Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     Was the length of the pre-trial detention of the applicant in application no. 75524/13 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   5.     Did the length of the proceedings in application no. 66094/12, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Place and duration of detention Complaints under Article 3 relating to the conditions of detention Other complaints   66094/12* 08/10/2012 Piotr MOCIU 01/01/1954 Cazaclia   Petru BALAN Remand facility of the Comrat police station; From 3 August 2012 to 30 November 2012   Allegations about the material conditions of detentions; dampness; cold concrete floors; insufficiency of daylight; lack of adequate medical assistance   Article 5 § 4 (dilatory examination of the habeas corpus request)   68118/13* 28/08/2013 Anatolie FLOREA 26/05/1963 Chisinau     Prison no. 13 in Chișinău; from 30 June 2011 to 13 August 2013 Allegations about the material conditions of detentions; Overcrowding (1.29 – 1.5 sq m per inmate)     75524/13* 21/11/2013 Olga CASU 14/06/1996 Vasilica   Natalia PRUTEANU Prison no. 13 in Chișinău; from 3 February 2012 to date Allegations about the material conditions of detentions; overcrowding (1.33 sq m per inmate); dampness; food of poor quality and quantity; cold winter and high summer temperatures; insufficiency of daylight   Article 5 § 3 (unlawful detention); Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy)   6490/14 26/12/2013 Gheorghe Mihai PETREA Chișinău     Prison no. 13 in Chișinău; 18 months at the moment of lodging the application Allegations about the material conditions of detentions; overcrowding (1.25 sq m per inmate)     6959/14 26/12/2013 Ivan PETREA 17/03/1986 Chișinău   Prison no. 13 in Chișinău; 18 months at the moment of lodging the application Allegations about the material conditions of detentions; overcrowding (1.25 sq m per inmate)