CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 18 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33418/17 O.P. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s ongoing pre-trial detention for over eleven months in poor conditions of detention in Prison No.   13. The applicant, who is a former bank employee, was accused of forging banking documents. She complains under 5 §   1 of the Convention that her detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion that she has committed an offence and that her detention was prolonged on several occasions by thirty-one days, whereas the maximum duration was limited to thirty days under the domestic law. The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the fact that her detention was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Finally, she complains under Article 5 § 4 that on several occasions it took too long time for the courts to examine her habeas corpus requests. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the material conditions of the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Shishanov v.   the Republic of Moldova , no.   11353/06, 15   September 2015)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence (see Muşuc v.   Moldova , no.   42440/06, §§   29-34, 6   November 2007)?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in view of the fact that her detention was prolonged on several occasions for periods exceeding thirty days?   4.     Were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts to remand the applicant in custody and to prolong her detention, reasonable and sufficient for the purposes of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §   115-23, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the examination of her habeas corpus requests carried out within time-limits compatible with that provision (see Sarban v.   Moldova , no.   3456/05, §§   115-24, 4   October   2005)?