CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2018

.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 5 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 50296/16 Teodor COMAN against Romania lodged on 18 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a final judgment of 23 February 2016 the Iași Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of forgery and sentenced him to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The applicant is currently serving his sentence in Jilava Prison. He complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of his detention in Botoşani, Iaşi, Vaslui and Jilava Prisons. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains that the principle of immediacy was not observed by the court of last resort, in so far as witnesses B.M. and C.M., whose testimonies were in his opinion, decisive for establishing his innocence, did not give oral evidence before the trial panel which ultimately convicted him. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Botoşani, Iaşi, Vaslui and Jilava Prisons in breach of the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention (see Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania , nos.   61467/12 and   3   others, 25 April 2017)? 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 trial panel which ultimately convicted him failed to hear directly witnesses B.M. and C.M., whose testimonies appear decisive for upholding the applicant’s conviction?