CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2016

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48093/15 Sorin ANTOHI against Romania lodged on 24 September 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sorin Antohi, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1972. He is currently detained in Jilava Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings opened against the applicant On 31 October 2011 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for embezzlement, fraud and forgery of privately signed documents and sent his case to trial. During the hearings held from 15 November 2011 to 3 December 2013, the Bucharest District Court sitting in a single judge formation, namely O.R.N., inter alia heard the applicant and the witnesses in the case. During the hearings held from 3 December 2013 to 25 February 2014 the Bucharest District Court’s single judge formation examining the applicant’s case changed repeatedly.   At the hearing of 23 September 2014 the Bucharest District Court, sitting in a single judge formation, namely F.M.P., dismissed inter alia the applicant’s request to be allowed to give a supplementary statement ( supliment de declarație ). The court held that there were no new elements that would have required a new hearing of the applicant. Also, during the deliberations he could have presented precise arguments in his defence by relying on all of the available evidence. On 29 October 2014 the Bucharest District Court, sitting in a single judge formation, namely F.M.P. convicted the applicant for embezzlement, fraud and forgery of privately signed documents on the basis of documentary and testimonial evidence. It also sentenced him to thirteen years imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He argued inter alia that the single judge formation which had examined his case during the first ‑ instance court proceedings had changed repeatedly. Consequently, the formation which had convicted him had not been the formation which had heard him and the witnesses directly. By a final judgment of 26 March 2015 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, without hearing the applicant or the witnesses directly, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court held inter alia that the procedural guarantees set out by the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code had been observed in the applicant’s case. In particular, the single judge formation which had convicted the applicant had also been present during the deliberation ( dezbatere ) of the case. Therefore, the changes to the single judge formation had not affected the applicant’s right of defence, including his right to have evidence adduced before a judge. 2.     Conditions of detention, including lack of separation between smokers and non-smokers On 1 July 2013 the applicant was detained pending trial. In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that during his detention pending trial in the Bucharest Police Precinct No. 15 and in Bucharest Central Arrest No. 1 he was detained with smokers even though he was a non-smoker and he was suffering from various chronic diseases and from breathing difficulties. In addition he had to share his 8 or 9 square metres cell with nine other detainees. The cell was fitted with six beds, was squalid, lacked sufficient light and had sanitary facilities which lacked privacy. The applicant also stated that following his transfer to Jilava Prison he was forced to share a cell which measured 35.33 square metres with between 16 and 26 other detainees. 3.     Conditions of detention in the court-house cells In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that at the courthouse he was quartered in overcrowded and squalid court-house cells together with smokers. B.     Relevant domestic law Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Laws nos. 275/2006 and 254/2013 as well as the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no.   35972/05, §§ 116-29, 24 July 2012), and Verdeş v. Romania (no. 6215/14, § 36, 24 November 2015). COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that after 1 July 2013 he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of detention, including a lack of separation between smokers and non-smokers, in the Bucharest Police Precinct No. 15, Bucharest Central Arrest No. 1 and Jilava Prison. In addition, he complains about the inadequate conditions of detention in the court-house cells. 2.     Invoking Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings opened against him in so far as he and the witnesses were not heard directly by the panels of judges which convicted him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention after 1 July 2013 on account of the conditions of his detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non-smokers, in the Bucharest Police Precinct No. 15 Bucharest Central Arrest No. 1, Jilava Prison and the court-house cells?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention in so far as the panels of judges which convicted him failed to hear him and the witnesses directly?