CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 avril 2009

.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 } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .sA755372D { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   329 21.04.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RADUCU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Raducu v. Romania (application no. 70787/01). The case concerns the applicant’s detention during criminal proceedings against him for trading in influence. The Court unanimously found:   no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life), because of the lack of any clear connection between the lack of care during pre-trial detention and the applicant’s death); a violation of Article 5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) because the applicant was unlawfully detained following a decision to release him; a violation of Article 5   §   4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily), in view of the length of proceedings before the Romanian courts; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), because of the lack of guarantees governing telephone tapping in Romanian law.   In application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Ion Raducu, was a Romanian national, born in 1939, and a former mayor of Alexandria, the city where he lived. He died on 27 December 2000 and his widow decided to pursue the application before the Court.   On 2 August 2000 the applicant was reported by a third party for allegedly soliciting a bribe from him; on the same day the authorities authorised the monitoring of his telephone calls. Caught in the act on 3 August, the applicant was arrested and charged with trading in influence, and remanded in custody for 30 days. On 14 August he applied to be released from custody. The County Court, which did not register his application until 24   August, declared on 25 August that it was unsubstantiated (that ruling was upheld on appeal).   On 19 October the Court of Appeal ordered his immediate release. Mr Raducu was released about a day late, however, because the release order was sent to the wrong prison.   On 4 August the applicant’s wife had informed the authorities of the gravity of her husband’s state of health (he had been suffering for a number of years from diabetes, myocardial ischaemia, high blood pressure, obesity and Parkinson’s disease). Apparently, however, the applicant received no treatment between 3 and 16 August.   On 16 August he was taken ill and admitted to hospital; the next day his condition stabilised. Mr Raducu was then kept in the prison hospital until 20 October, where he was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, a disease which requires strict observance of the patient’s treatment for diabetes. He also received treatment for two other diseases contracted while in detention. When he was released on 20 October 2000, his general condition was stable.   On 27 December, having been admitted to hospital again, the applicant died of a heart attack brought on by an acute pulmonary oedema, myocardial ischaemia, diabetes and obesity.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the Court on 3 January 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 4 and 8, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully kept in detention for about a day after his release had been ordered, that the examination of the lawfulness of his detention had taken too long and that his telephone calls had been monitored. His widow subsequently alleged, relying on Article 2, that her husband’s death was linked to the lack of proper treatment during his pre-trial detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 The Court found that no document submitted by the authorities indicated that the applicant had received proper treatment from 3 to 16 August. On the other hand, he had subsequently received constant care and his analyses showed that his condition was stable when he was released. Lastly, as the applicant had died over two months after his release, the lack of treatment in the early part of his pre-trial detention could not be considered as the direct and immediate cause of his death. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 2.   Article 5 § 1 The Court considered that the applicant’s detention from 19 to 20 October could not be attributed to the delay generally inevitable in the enforcement of a release order. The Government had failed to justify the mistake in the address to which the order was sent, which had not been rectified until 12 hours later, whereas it was the authorities’ duty to show special diligence in identifying the applicant’s place of detention. The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   1.   Article 5 § 4 The Court found that two levels of jurisdiction had taken 30 days: it had taken 10 days for the court to register the complaint lodged with the prosecuting authorities - whereas domestic law provided for a 24-hour deadline - and the Court of Appeal had not given judgment until 16 days after the appeal.   The authorities presented no relevant justification for these delays. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 8 The Court once again noted the lack of guarantees in Romanian law concerning the monitoring of telephone calls at the material time, which was incompatible with the minimum degree of protection in a democratic society and which the Romanian Government had failed to justify. It found that there had been a violation of Article 8.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) ***   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.