CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 8 novembre 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 8 November 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2055/15 Nikolaos VASILIADIS against Greece lodged on 30 December 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Nikolaos Vasiliadis, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Thessaloniki. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Chatziioannou, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 12 July 2014 the applicant was arrested by the Greek police on the basis of arrest warrant 16/1995 of the Investigating Judge of A΄ Thessaloniki Department of Misdemeanour Judges and on the basis of arrest warrant 17/2011 of Investigating Judge of Polygyros. The two arrest warrants had been kept in force by 389/1995 Order of the President of Appeal Judges of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court and 250/2012 Ordinance of the Indictment Division of the Chalkidiki First Instance Criminal Court respectfully.   Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the premises of the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, where he was detained until 8   September 2014. The applicant submits that the detention area was overcrowded, with poor ventilation and insufficient natural light. The place was filthy and lacked sleeping facilities. On 4 September 2014 he lodged two applications with the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal, under Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging his pre-trial detention. The first application referring to arrest warrant 16/1995 was not transmitted to the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal by the Public Prosecutor. On 16 October 2014 the second application referring to arrest warrant 17/2011 was rejected by the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal which endorsed the Prosecutor’s proposal in this respect. In his proposal, the Prosecutor mentioned that: “...The aforementioned serious indications of guilt, in combination with the specific characteristics of the felony committed and of which he is accused, - his previous criminal behaviour, given that the arrest warrant no. 16/5-1995 of the Investigating Judge for robbery committed jointly is pending against the defendant ...” (page 24 of judgment 739/2014 of the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal).   On 8 September 2014, the applicant was transferred to Diavata prison. On 13 November 2014, the Prosecutor of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal cancelled the arrest warrant 16/1995 of the Investigating Judge of A΄ Thessaloniki Department of Misdemeanour Judges due to the fact that the case-file had been lost, it was not possible to have it reconstituted and the prosecution of the offence with which he had been charged was time-barred. On 17 November 2014 the applicant’s trial regarding arrest warrant 17/2011 took place before the Three-member Thessaloniki Court of Appeal for Felonies. The applicant was acquitted and released the same date. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice, is described in the judgment Dimopoulos v. Greece , no. 49658/09, §§ 16-23, 9 October 2012. In addition, Article 66 § 6 of Presidential Decree no 141/1991 reads as follows: “The detention of remand as well as condemned prisoners in police stations is not permitted, unless for the time absolutely necessary for their transfer to prison and only if their direct transfer to prison is not possible”. C. Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture In its report of 1 March 2016, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), following its visit to Greece from 14 to 23 April 2015, concluded that the material conditions in the police stations were generally very poor. In particular, as regards the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters, the CPT made the following remarks: “At Monasteriou General Police Headquarters in Thessaloniki, the 20 cells and the sanitary areas of the detention facility on the third floor were not cleaned on a regular basis. Detained persons complained about the lack of natural light and ventilation in the cells and that they were not provided with hygiene and cleaning products. The blankets were dusty and dirty. Remand prisoners continued to be held there for up to two months, without any access to outdoor exercise”.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his detention to the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 2 about a violation of the presumption of innocence on account of the remark included in the Public Prosecutor’s proposal of 6 October 2014 to the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal, referring to the applicant’s previous behaviour as “criminal” on account of a pending arrest warrant.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention in the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters?   2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in view of the fact that, in his proposal to the Indictment Division, the Prosecutor described the applicant’s conduct as “the previous criminal behaviour” because an arrest warrant in another case against him was pending.