CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 octobre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s35125603 { width:333.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE38DDE73 { width:176.68pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sAE3768EF { width:121.26pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s88AC9A30 { width:283.95pt; display:inline-block } .s9588166 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s38C4179A { width:157.95pt; display:inline-block } .s6B1DE416 { width:101.29pt; display:inline-block } .sE7C57005 { width:265.92pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   505 4.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]   Violation of Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) Becciev v. Moldova (application no 9190/03)       Violation of Article 3   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   No violation of Article 5 § 3 (competency of judges)   No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05)     Constantin Becciev is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişnǎu. He is the head of Chişnǎu Public Water Company. Vladimir Sarban is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Chişnǎu. He worked as the secretary of Chişnǎu Municipal Council.   Becciev Mr Becciev was arrested and detained in remand from February   to August 2003 on charges of embezzlement. The reasons given by the court for his detention were based on the seriousness of the alleged offence, the fact that he might abscond or influence the participants in the investigation or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. His numerous appeals for release were dismissed on the same grounds.   Mr Becciev complained about the conditions of his detention in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Chişnǎu, where he was detained from February to April 2003. He complained about the lack of toilet and washing facilities and the general lack of hygiene, which put him at constant risk of catching infectious diseases. Metal plates fixed to the window allowed no natural light or ventilation to enter the cell, as a result of which, it was so damp that the inmates’ clothes rotted on their bodies. Wooden shelves served as beds with no mattresses, pillows, blankets or bed linen. No outdoor exercise was available. Also, despite the inadequate provision of food at the centre, the applicant was allowed only one parcel from his family per month. The Government disputed some of his complaints.   In April 2003 the independent weekly newspaper “Timpul” published an interview with police colonel “C.B.” who had arrested Mr Becciev and been in charge of his case. He alleged that the case against Mr Becciev had been fabricated for political reasons. He also mentioned that Mr Becciev had fully cooperated during the investigation proceedings and gave no reason to believe that he might abscond.   Mr Becciev requested to have “C.B.” examined as a witness in a subsequent hearing. His request was refused. No reasons were given.   Sarban Mr Sarban was detained in the remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC) between 12 November 2004 and 19   January   2005 for alleged abuse of power, under Article 327 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to a purchase of 40 ambulances by the Chişinău Mayoralty.   Officer GG. from the CFECC, who had arrested Mr Sarban later stated at a press conference that the case against the applicant had been fabricated for political reasons.   Mr Sarban’s made numerous appeals for release based, among other things, on his bad state of health, his irreproachable conduct during the investigation and the unlikelihood of his leaving the country. He later included the statement of officer G.G., in his habeus corpus requests. The courts refused his appeals essentially repeating each time the same grounds, ie., the seriousness of the offence, the risk of his absconding, obstructing the investigation or re-offending.   Mr Sarban’s complained that his second habeas corpus request lodged on 13 January 2005 was not examined promptly enough as the court postponed three hearings without examining his request. It was rejected on 2 February 2005   . Mr Sarban complained about the lack of sufficient medical assistance during his detention in the CFECC remand centre between November 2004 and January 2005. Some of his complaints were disputed by the Government.   Mr Sarban suffered from a medical condition called progressive cervical osteoarthritis (mielopatie) and had to wear a device immobilizing his neck to minimize risk of fatal injuries to his spinal cord. He also suffered from gout and from arterial hypertension of second degree with increased risk of cardio-vascular complications.   According to Mr Sarban, there were no medical personnel in the remand centre and he had to use the opportunity to have his blood pressure measured through the bars of the cage in which he was held during court hearings. Furthermore, he claimed that neither his family doctor, doctor G., nor any other doctor, had been allowed to examine him while in detention until after communication of his application to the Government. He also claimed that, in December 2004, the CFECC administration refused to allow him to be seen by a neurologist.   He also complained about the lack of medical attention he received at the detainee hospital where he was taken in November 2004 after fainting during a court hearing. Despite often complaining of the pain in his neck and numbness in his fingers and arms he only saw a neurologist once and his recommendations that he be seen by a neurosurgeon were not followed up.   He also complained that, except for one occasion, he was always brought to the court in handcuffs and placed in a metal cage during the hearings.   Lastly, Mr Sarban alleged there had been an interference with his consultations with his lawyer as the room for meetings between lawyers and detainees in the remand centre had a double glass partition with holes which only partly coincided and which were covered with a thick net, to keep them separated. According to the applicant, they had to shout in order to hear each other and could not exchange documents for signature.   Both applicants relied on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4. Mr   Sarban also relied on Article   8 § 1.   Article 3 As to Mr Becciev’s complaints about the conditions of his detention in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Court noted that two reports produced by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture described similar conditions to those detailed in the applicant’s accounts which lent credibility to his complaints. In any case, it was undisputed that the detainees were not provided with sufficient food and that there were metal shutters on the cell’s window. Nor was it contested that detainees were forced to sleep on wooden platforms without any bedclothes or mattress being provided. The Court also concluded from the evidence available that Mr Becciev was not provided with any outdoor exercise.   In view of those findings, the Court considered that the hardship he endured for 37 days went beyond the unavoidable level inherent in detention. It therefore held, unanimously, that the conditions of Mr Becciev’s detention amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   The Court found that Mr Sarban did not receive sufficient medical assistance while in the remand centre. It noted that, according to the medical register submitted by the Government, Mr Sarban was examined only once. Furthermore he was also denied the possibility to receive medical assistance from other sources, such as his family doctor or other qualified doctors. Doctor R.V. appeared for the first time in the documents submitted by the Moldovan Government only after the applicant’s case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated.   The Court also found that Mr Sarban was not provided with sufficient medical assistance in the detainee hospital since, despite repeatedly complaining about his illness, he saw a neurologist only once, and was not referred to a neurosurgeon as recommended.   In determining whether Mr Sarban had suffered degrading treatment, the Court noted that he clearly suffered from the effects of his medical condition, even while in hospital. Furthermore, he must have felt very anxious, knowing that he risked at any moment a medical emergency and that no medical assistance was available.   The Court also noted that Mr Sarban was brought in handcuffs to court and held in a cage during the hearings, even though he was under guard and was wearing a surgical collar around his neck. His doctor had to measure his blood pressure through the bars of the cage in front of the public. The Court held that such safety measures were unwarranted and were humiliating.   All those acts took place in full view of the media.   In the Court’s view, the failure to provide basic medical assistance to Mr Sarban when he clearly needed and had requested it, as well as the refusal to allow independent specialised medical assistance, together with other forms of humiliation, amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 3 The Court considered the reasons relied upon by the domestic authorities in their decisions concerning Mr Sarban’s and Mr Becciev detention on remand and its prolongation were not “relevant and sufficient”.   The Court noted that both applicants had advanced substantial arguments questioning each of the grounds for their detention. In particular their conduct regarding the investigation had always been irreproachable; they had family and property in Moldova and were ready to hand in their passports. Although the courts were legally obliged to consider those arguments, they simply repeated formal grounds for detention provided by law in their decisions without any attempt to show how they applied to their cases. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in both cases.   Mr Sarban also complained that the judges were not competent to order his release pending trial. The Court rejected that argument and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 in that respect.   Article 5 § 4   Becciev The Court considered that the statements made by Colonel C.B. brought into question whether reasonable suspicion existed that Mr Becciev had committed a criminal offence and was required to be detained on remand. The Colonel’s testimony had the potential to undermine the entire legal basis of his arrest and detention; as a former member of the investigating team, his allegations could not simply be dismissed. Bearing in mind that the applicant was not released until three-and-a-half months later, the Court held, by six votes to one, that by refusing to hear C.B. as a witness, the court had breached the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 4.   Sarban As to Mr Sarban’s second habeus corpus request, the Court considered that the period of 21 days which elapsed before the courts examined his request did not correspond to the requirement of a speedy judicial decision. Administrative issues should not have taken priority over reviewing the lawfulness of Mr Sarban’s detention, in view of what was at stake.   His habeas corpus request was based on important facts - his poor state of health and the absence of medical care in the remand centre and the statement of his former investigator G.G. Those elements added urgency to the request which should have been taken into account by the domestic court. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 8 § 1 Mr Sarban claimed that conversations with his lawyer were being overheard or recorded and that the authorities had failed to provide proper conditions for private discussions with his lawyer. However, he did not furnish any evidence to substantiate this complaint.   He also claimed that the glass partition constituted a hindrance in preparing his defence with his lawyer. The Court found that while the partition might well have created certain obstacles to effective communication with his lawyer, they did not impede Mr Sarban from mounting an effective defence before the domestic authorities. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8.   The Court awarded: Mr Becciev - 1,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses, and Mr Sarban - EUR 4,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3.000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.