CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 086 02.02.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Mariana Marinescu v. Romania (no. 36110/03)     VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION DUE TO DETENTION CONDITIONS OF JUDGE CONVICTED OF RECEIPT OF BRIBES AND ABUSE OF OFFICE     Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) No violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicant, Mrs Mariana Marinescu, was born in 1949 and lives in Oradea. At the relevant time she was a judge at the Bihor County Court, specialised in tax reassessment cases and liquidations.   In October 2000 two official liquidators lodged a criminal complaint against her for receipt of bribes and abuse of office, accusing her of asking them for money to maintain them in their posts and also of illegally selling the assets of a company in liquidation.   During the investigation the prosecution questioned witnesses in the applicant’s absence, including S.I., who said that he had been interested in purchasing the company in question.   Mrs Marinescu appeared before the prosecutor to make an initial statement. She was also brought face to face with two witnesses in the presence of her lawyers. On 17 May 2001 she was suspended from her judicial duties by order of the Ministry of Justice and charged. She requested the hearing of witnesses and a report by a court-appointed expert, but to no avail.   The public prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial and issued a general warrant for her arrest when she failed to appear for the presentation of the investigation file. On 21 July 2001 she absconded, complaining that the investigation had been unfair and that the prosecution had brought pressure to bear on her.   The applicant was absent throughout the proceedings, where she was represented by her husband and her lawyer. At first instance the injured parties were questioned, together with witnesses for the prosecution and the defence. A sworn statement by witness S.I., who was unable to appear in court for health reasons, was read out in public and filed. In view of the influence Mrs Marinescu’s husband might have had over the witness, only those parts of S.I.’s statement which agreed with his previous statement to the prosecutor and with the statements of the other witnesses were taken into account. In December 2001 the applicant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for receipt of bribes and abuse of office.   Appealing against that judgment, Mrs Marinescu claimed that the media attention given to her case had affected the judges’ impartiality, and complained of procedural irregularities. In a judgment of 29 May 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.   In September 2003 the applicant was placed in a high-security prison. In 2005 she was transferred to Târgşor prison, then to the Movila Vulpii rehabilitation centre in January 2007, and back to Târgşor prison in June 2007. She complained about the conditions of her detention in the prisons, including overcrowding, poor food and poor hygiene.   In October 2008 Mrs Marinescu was released on parole.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 the applicant complained about the poor conditions of her detention in prison, and under Article 6   §§   1 and 3 (d) she complained of a violation of her right to a fair trial, because she had not had an opportunity to question the witness S.I., on the strength of whose statement she had been convicted of abuse of office.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges, and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court rejected the part of the application concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention prior to June 2007 on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time (Article 35   §§   1 and 4) and examined the conditions of her detention in Târgşor prison from June 2007 onwards.   In her cell the applicant had had about 1.89 m 2 and 2 m 2 of living space respectively, some of which was taken up by furniture. The Court also noted that for an unspecified length of time she had had to use outdoor showers.   While welcoming the efforts made by the Romanian authorities to improve conditions in prisons and noting that there was no sign of any intention on their part to humiliate the applicant, the Court considered that the prison conditions in question, which the applicant had had to endure for about one year and four months, had caused her hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6   Only part of the sworn statement in which S.I. had answered questions from the applicant’s lawyer had been taken into account – the part which corroborated the statement S.I. had made during the investigation and the statements made by the other witnesses. The Court considered that the questioning of S.I. by the applicant’s lawyer in such conditions had not given Mrs Marinescu an “adequate and proper opportunity” to challenge the statement made by the witness during the investigation.   However, the applicant’s conviction for abuse of office had been based on the testimony of witnesses heard during the trial and the documentary evidence in the file had been examined in the light of the applicable legislation on liquidation proceedings. The applicant’s rights of defence had therefore not been restricted in a manner incompatible with the protection afforded by Article   6. The Court accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d). ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.