CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   526 30.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VIOREL BURZO v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Viorel Burzo v. Romania (application no. 75109/01).   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 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in that the applicant had not been brought promptly before a judicial authority on being taken into detention; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the wiretapping of the applicant’s office and the sanction concerning his parental rights; and, no violation of Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair hearing) as regards the presumption of the applicant’s innocence, and no violation of Article 6   §§   1   and   3 as regards the evidence and the examination of witnesses for the prosecution.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Viorel Burzo, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. On 20 January 2001 Mr Burzo, who was President of the Criminal Division of the Cluj-Napoca Court of Appeal, was arrested on suspicion of trading in influence. The order for his detention stated that in July 2000 the applicant had received money from a certain G.M. while the latter’s husband was in detention, with the aim of persuading the judges of the Cluj Court of Appeal to be lenient.   Mr Burzo was taken into custody at the detention facility at Cluj police headquarters. He spent a total of 11 days there in an unheated basement cell measuring 5.75   sq.   m, with two other detainees. Mr Burzo alleged that he was allowed to go to the toilet only twice a day.   A series of articles on Mr Burzo’s arrest appeared in the national and local press on 22   January 2001, 23 January 2001 (the day after a press conference by the prosecution service) and in late January and early February 2001. They gave a summary of the alleged offences, in some cases presenting Mr Burzo’s guilt as established, and in some cases claiming to have received confirmation of his guilt from an official source.   Among the evidence in the file on the investigation was a recording of a conversation between G.M.’s husband and Mr Burzo, obtained through the wiretapping of the applicant’s office by the Romanian Intelligence Service.   On 21 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to Bucharest-Jilava Prison, where he was held until 14 August 2002 in a cell of 14   sq.   m with natural light, together with nine other detainees. According to Mr Burzo, a hole in the floor served as a toilet, the water was not fit to drink and only one shower a week was allowed. According to the Government, the applicant was entitled to one hour of outdoor activity a day.   On 11 July 2001, after examining the evidence, the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced Mr   Burzo to four years’ imprisonment for trading in influence, and barred him from exercising his parental rights in respect of his daughter during that time. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant.   On 14 August 2002 he was transferred from Jilava Prison to Bistriţa Prison in a prison van. Mr Burzo claimed that he had to stand up throughout the 23-hour journey and did not receive any food or medical treatment. The Government noted that the prisoners had been given cold food and had been accompanied by a team capable of providing first aid.   Mr Burzo continued serving his sentence in Bistriţa Prison until 25 July 2003, when a court ordered his release on licence.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   Applications no. 75109/01 and no. 12639/02 were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 February 2001 and 25 February 2002 respectively. The Court decided to join the two cases and to examine their admissibility and merits at the same time.   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), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying mainly on Article 3, Article 5 § 3, Article 6 §§ 1-3 and Article 8 of the Convention, Mr Burzo complained in particular that the conditions in which he had been detained in Cluj and Jilava and transferred to Bistriţa had been poor, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge after his arrest, that he had not been presumed innocent, that his telephone conversations had been intercepted as a result of the wiretapping of his office, and that he had been barred from exercising his parental rights because of his criminal conviction.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Regarding the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Court noted that his allegations were consistent with the situation described by the CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) following visits to Romanian prisons, and were partly confirmed by the Government.   In both Cluj and Jilava Mr Burzo had had a very restricted amount of living space. The Court noted the serious breaches of the normal hygiene and privacy requirements in Cluj, in particular the improvised sanitary facilities, notwithstanding the relatively short duration of the applicant’s detention there, namely 13 days. In Jilava Mr Burzo had been confined to his cell most of the time, with limited access to showers and with a water supply that the Government had been unable to prove was fit to drink.   The Court observed that the lack of intention to humiliate was not sufficient to rule out a violation of Article 3. Furthermore, without examining the conditions in which Mr Burzo had been transferred, it noted that it would be desirable to spare sick detainees the strain of long journeys and to provide them with adequate medical assistance.   The Court thus found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of Mr Burzo’s detention.   Article 5 § 3   The overall length of Mr Burzo’s detention before being brought before a judicial authority had been 19 days, and the Government had not provided any justification for such a delay.   Mr Burzo had therefore not been brought “promptly” before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, in breach of Article 5 §   3.   Article 8   The question of telephone tapping   It was not disputed that the interference by the public authorities with Mr Burzo’s right to respect for his private life had a basis in law. However, the legal provisions in question, in the context of the interception of telephone conversations in Romania at the relevant time, disclosed shortcomings that were incompatible with the minimum degree of protection to which citizens were entitled in a democratic society, in breach of Article   8.   The question of parental rights   The Court reiterated that the automatic ban on exercising parental rights, as in place at the relevant time, did not pursue the overriding legitimate aim of protecting the child’s interests. Moreover, the Court welcomed the subsequent amendment of the Romanian Criminal Code on this point.   In addition, in the present case the offence of trading in influence of which Mr Burzo had been convicted was wholly unconnected to matters concerning parental responsibility. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 8.   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   The Court considered that neither the use in evidence of the disputed recording nor the failure to examine prosecution witnesses had denied Mr Burzo a fair trial. It therefore dismissed these complaints.   Article 6 § 2   The authorities were legitimately entitled to inform the public about criminal investigations in progress, but they had to do so with the circumspection necessary to respect the presumption of innocence.   The present case had been of interest to the newspapers and the public in that Mr Burzo had occupied one of the highest positions in the Romanian judicial system. In such circumstances, it was inevitable in a democratic society that harsh comments would sometimes be made by the press.   Mr Burzo had simply mentioned the titles of the newspapers to which his complaints related, without giving details of the statements by the prosecution that had allegedly infringed his right to be presumed innocent. Furthermore, only two of the newspapers had published statements by the authorities, and their context had not been specified. It was therefore not established that the statements had concerned the applicant’s guilt; they might instead have reflected the prosecution’s desire to maintain that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the institution of criminal proceedings. The Court observed that the authorities could not be held responsible for the way in which the prosecution’s position was presented by the press.   The Court further noted, firstly, that several months had elapsed between the articles in question and Mr Burzo’s conviction and, secondly, that the courts hearing his case had been composed entirely of professional judges, who were less likely than a jury to be influenced by the press.   The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2.     ***   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.