CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   743 6.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEPULEAC v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Stepuleac v. Moldova (application no. 8207/06).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Mr Stepuleac’s detention conditions and the lack of medical assistance provided; a violation of Article 3 concerning the failure to investigate Mr   Stepuleac’s complaints about intimidation in his cell; and, a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) concerning Mr Stepuleac’s two arrests without there being a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Stepuleac 12,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Gheorghe Stepuleac, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is the director of Tantal SRL, a company which provides security services.   The case concerned Mr Stepuleac’s claim that he was falsely arrested and detained in inhuman and degrading conditions because, he maintained, Government officials were trying to put him out of business.   Mr Stepuleac was first arrested on 29 November 2005 following the opening of a criminal investigation into allegations made by G.N., who was himself accused of theft and damaging property while working as a security guard employed by Tantal SRL. G.N. complained, among other things, that he had been threatened with violence by Tantal personnel unless he paid for the damage done. G.N.’s complaints were registered by Officer O. of the General Directorate for Fighting Organised Crime (GDFOC), a subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reason given for Mr Stepuleac’s arrest was that the victim (G.N.) had identified him as responsible for the alleged crimes.   From that date (29 November 2005) until 9 March 2006 the applicant was detained in the GDFOC remand centre, except for a few days when he was on bail (from 7 to 18 December 2005) after the relevant court rejected the reasons given for his detention.   On 6 December 2005, Tantal SRL's licence was revoked at the request of one of the subdivisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, on the grounds that the company had breached the rules about guards wearing uniforms of certain colours and that the applicant had been involved in criminal activities.   On 12 December 2005 the applicant told the media that his arrest had been the result of efforts by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to monopolise the security services market by destroying competitors, including his company.   On 15 December 2005 the applicant was again arrested on the ground that H.A and another person had accused him of blackmail. The complaint was registered by GDFOC Officer O. and the reason given in the minutes of arrest was that the victim expressly identified the applicant as the perpetrator of the crime.   Between 18 December 2005 and 1 February 2006 the applicant's detention was extended four times. The extension was each time agreed on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime and that he might otherwise obstruct the investigation or put pressure on witnesses. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on each occasion.   On 6 and 7 February 2006 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General's Office about the lack of and poor quality of the food in the detention centre and that he was not allowed to receive daily food parcels from his wife. He also complained that, in the absence of his lawyer, unidentified persons had come to his cell and put pressure on him to give up his business. He considered that he had been placed in solitary confinement so that there would be no witnesses. He asked to be transferred from the GDFOC detention centre, as the GDFOC was investigating his case, to a centre under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. He received no response to either complaint.   On 7 February 2006 the applicant claimed that he was suffering from bronchitis and asked to be transferred to another centre where he could be given medical assistance, as the GDFOC centre had no medical staff. The Head of GDFOC replied that, should the applicant need it, he would be given full medical assistance.   On 17 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was extended for another ten days. In his appeal against that decision, the applicant complained, among other things: that he had no access to daylight, as his cell was underground; that his cell was very humid; that there was no bed linen; that he only had access to shower facilities once every ten days and to the toilet, once a day; that there was no opportunity for daily exercise; and, that there were no medical staff in the detention centre.   On 9 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to a Ministry of Justice detention centre.   In a habeas corpus request of 22 May 2006 the applicant's lawyer relied, among other things, on statements made in court on 14 and 16 April 2006; H.A. had stated that he had only included the applicant's name at the suggestion of Officer O. and the other person had said that he had had no claim against the applicant. That account was not disputed by the Moldovan Government.   On 23 May 2006 the applicant was released against an undertaking not to leave the city.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 March 2006. Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the Chamber decided to give priority to the examination of the case.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, Mr Stepuleac complained, in particular, that: he had been held in inhuman and degrading conditions and deprived of medical assistance; that he had been intimidated in prison; and that he had been unlawfully detained in that the courts had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention, and that he had had no access to the relevant parts of his criminal file in order effectively to challenge his detention pending trial.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Conditions in GDFOC detention centre and lack of medical assistance The Court found that the applicant’s official food entitlement in prison was insufficient and that he was detained in a cell without access to daylight.   In addition, the Government did not contest the applicant's claim that he only had access to a toilet once a day, that his cell was unheated, that he had to sleep in his clothes and use his own bedding. The description of the applicant’s detention conditions was at least partly corroborated by the Council of Europe’s CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) which visited the GDFOC detention centre prison in June 2001. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant was detained in conditions inconsistent with Article 3.   Concerning the lack of available medical assistance, the Court noted that, despite the Government's assertion that only a specialist could decide whether or not the applicant had bronchitis in the absence of in-depth medical tests, the applicant was not given any such test or examined by a specialist doctor at the relevant time. Moreover, the Government did not deny that humidity in the cells might have aggravated the applicant's bronchitis and the applicant did not receive daily medical care, as there were no medical personnel at the GDFOC detention centre. He was, therefore, caught in a vicious circle, in that he was denied assistance unless he “really needed” it, but could not prove such a need as he had no access to a doctor. The applicant therefore did not receive sufficient medical treatment while being detained in the GDFOC detention centre.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 because the applicant had been detained for over three months without: adequate medical assistance, sufficient food, free access to tap water and a toilet or access to daylight for up to 22 hours a day.   Investigation into alleged intimidation The Court noted that the applicant received no response concerning his complaint that he was subjected to intimidation in his cell and the Moldovan Government submitted no evidence that any steps had been taken to investigate the matter. Neither was there a court order to place the applicant in solitary confinement.   The Court noted that in 2006 the keeping of an accused person in a detention centre under the same authority as the one prosecuting him (the Ministry of Internal Affairs) created the potential for abuse.   While the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence that the applicant had indeed been intimidated in his cell, it considered that the State did not properly investigate the allegations of ill-treatment. The Court therefore found that there had been a further violation of Article 3 concerning the failure to investigate the applicant’s complaints about intimidation in his prison cell, where he felt particularly vulnerable since he was detained alone.   Article 5 § 1   The applicant’s first arrest The Court first noted that none of the courts examining the prosecutor's actions and requests for arrest considered whether there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime, despite the applicant's claim that he was innocent.   The only ground cited by the prosecuting authority when arresting the applicant and when requesting the court to order his pre-trial detention was that the victim (G.N.) had directly identified him as the perpetrator of a crime. Yet the complaint lodged by G.N. did not directly indicate the applicant's name. The applicant was never accused of condoning illegal activities on the premises of his company, which might have explained his arrest as Tantal's director, but of personal participation in blackmail.   The Moldovan Government stated that G.N. identified the applicant some time after lodging his complaint, without submitting any supporting documents. There were also reasons to doubt G.N.'s credibility. However, the authorities did not verify the information he had provided. That lent support to the applicant's claim that the investigating authorities did not genuinely verify the facts in order to determine the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, but rather pursued his arrest, allegedly for private interests.   It was noteworthy that a subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs – the authority which had started the investigation into the applicant's case – asked for and obtained the withdrawal of the applicant's company's licence on the ground of his participation in illegal activities before any court had established his guilt and just after the relevant court had found the grounds advanced for the applicant’s detention in a detention centre to be unconvincing.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning the applicant's first arrest.   The applicant's second arrest The Court noted that the Government did not deny the statements in court made in April 2006 by H.A. and another person concerning the identification of the applicant. The Court also found similarities between the applicant’s two arrests. Each time the only ground for his arrest was a complaint by an alleged victim; no other evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime was ever submitted.   Had the applicant indeed committed the crime and had he wanted to pressure the victim or witnesses or destroy evidence, he would have had plenty of time to do so before December 2005, and no evidence was submitted to the Court of any such actions on the part of the applicant. There was, therefore, no urgency for an arrest in order to stop an ongoing criminal activity. Instead of such verification, the applicant was arrested the day the investigation started.   More disturbingly, it followed from the statements of the two alleged victims that one of the complaints was fabricated and the investigating authority did not verify with him whether he had indeed made that complaint, while the other was the result of the direct influence of Officer O., the person who registered the first complaint against the applicant. Both complaints were therefore irrelevant for the purposes of determining the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime. In addition, a very troubling impression had been created that the applicant was deliberately targeted.   Finding no evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime, the Court held that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning the applicant's second arrest.   Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   Having found that the applicant’s detention as a whole was contrary to Article 5 § 1, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints under Article 5.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.