European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
ISTRATII AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA - 8721/05 [2007] ECHR 229 (27 March 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/229.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 229
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
ISTRATII AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
(Applications
nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
March 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Istratii and Others v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and
Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 March 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in three applications (nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and
8742/05) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under
Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Moldovan
nationals, Mr Viorel Istratii, Mr Alexandru Burcovschi and Mr
Roman Luţcan (“the applicants”),
on 5 March 2005.
The
applicants were represented by Mr A. Tănase,
a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.
Pârlog.
The
applicants alleged that they had been held in inhuman conditions and
denied medical assistance, that the courts had not given relevant and
sufficient reasons for their detention, that the judges who ordered
their detention were not competent to do so under the law and that
they were prevented from communicating in confidence with their
lawyers.
The
applications were allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule
52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber
that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention)
was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
On
15 June 2005 a Chamber of that Section decided to communicate the
application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 §
3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its
admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants, Mr Viorel Istratii, Mr Alexandru Burcovschi and Mr Roman
Luţcan, are Moldovan nationals who
were born in 1971, 1970 and 1976 respectively and all live in
Chişinău.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows (most events happened in the same way and on the same date in
respect of all the applicants; whenever facts differ, it is specified
in the text).
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicants and
their detention on remand
On
25 October 2004 the Department for Cross-Border and Information Crime
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal investigation
against the applicants for fraud in connection with the purchase of
plots of land in Chişinău, which allegedly cost the State
approximately 15,000 euros (EUR).
On
12 November 2004 the prosecutor requested warrants for the pre-trial
detention of the applicants. On the same day three Buiucani District
Court judges issued warrants for the applicants' pre-trial detention
for ten days for the following reasons:
“[Each applicant] is suspected of committing a
serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of
deprivation of liberty for more than two years; the evidence
submitted to the court was lawfully obtained; the isolation of the
suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law
enforcement authorities or the court; could obstruct the finding of
truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.
On 15 November 2004 the applicants appealed against
the decisions ordering their pre-trial detention, questioning the
grounds for that detention. They submitted that they had appeared
before the investigating authorities when summoned and had not
attempted to interfere in any way with the investigation or to
abscond thereafter. Each applicant emphasised that he had no criminal
record, had a family, including minor children, and a permanent
residence in Chişinău, and had special medical needs.
Mr Burcovschi submitted that he was the only breadwinner in his
family and that his detention might cause serious hardship for his
family, including his elderly mother who suffered from cardiac
disease. Mr Luţcan added that he had
come to the investigating authority directly from the maternity
hospital and that he had not even seen his son, born on the day he
was arrested, and could not give any support to his wife and child.
On
18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the
appeals, without responding explicitly to any of the above
submissions. It rejected Mr Istratii's appeal for the following
reasons:
“In exceptional circumstances, depending on the
complexity of the criminal case and the gravity of the crime and
where there is a risk that the accused might abscond or put pressure
on witnesses, the period of pre-trial detention during the criminal
investigation may be prolonged ... taking into account that Mr
Istratii is suspected of committing a particularly serious offence,
that there is a risk that he could put pressure on witnesses, could
abscond from law enforcement authorities; the separation of the
suspect from society remains necessary”.
It
rejected Mr Burcovschi's appeal for the following reasons:
“The request to remand Mr Burcovschi was examined
within the limits of the law and was correctly accepted on the basis
of documents in the criminal file, which was opened in accordance
with the law and with the need to remand the suspect”.
The
Court of Appeal rejected Mr Luţcan's
appeal for the following reasons:
“Mr Luţcan is
suspected of committing a serious offence for which the law provides
a punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years; he
could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; could
obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation. ... The
lower court correctly reasoned the applicant's remand without
committing any procedural violations”.
2. Prolongations of the applicants' detention on remand
On
18 November 2004 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the
applicants' detention on remand for another 30 days. The applicants
made submissions against their continued detention. The court gave
similar reasoning in each case, citing Article 186 § 3 of the
Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC', see paragraph 24 below).
On
24 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld those
decisions. The court used similar reasoning in each case, finding
that:
“The circumstances which were the basis for his
detention remained valid; there was a risk that [each applicant]
might put pressure on victims and witnesses. In prolonging the remand
no violations of the law affecting the lawfulness of the decision
have been established”.
The
prosecutor obtained decisions from the Buiucani District Court
prolonging the applicants' detention on remand on three occasions, in
December 2004, January 2005 and February 2005. All of these decisions
were upheld by the Court of Appeal. The reasons given for
each of these prolongations were similar to those in the court
decisions of 18 and 24 November 2004 mentioned above.
3. Habeas corpus requests
The
applicants made habeas corpus requests to the investigating
judge of the Buiucani District Court, noting, inter alia, that
some of their property had been seized by the court and that this
would be an additional guarantee of their proper conduct. The
requests were rejected in December 2004 and in February 2005. The
court used similar reasoning in each case, finding that:
“[the applicant] is accused of committing a
particularly serious offence for which the law provides a punishment
of deprivation of liberty for more than two years; the prosecution
case is not complete and a further criminal investigation is to be
conducted, there is a risk that he may abscond from law enforcement
authorities; there is a continued need to separate him from society
and the grounds for his detention on remand remain valid”.
On
29 April 2005, following another habeas corpus request, the
Rîşcani District Court ordered
the applicants' release, subject to an obligation not to leave the
country, finding that:
“[the applicants] have no criminal record, all
have permanent residence, are well appreciated at work, have families
and minor dependants. Mr Luţcan
suffers from a serious illness, Mr Istratii underwent surgery during
detention and needs treatment; all have jobs and none has absconded
from the investigation authorities; there is no evidence that they
have obstructed the investigation in any manner; the criminal file is
now ready for trial; all the prosecution evidence has been gathered
and all witnesses have made statements.
Accordingly, the court considers that the accused cannot
abscond from the court, obstruct the criminal investigation or commit
other crimes and considers it possible to replace the preventive
measure of detention on remand with an obligation not to leave the
country”.
4. Conditions of detention
(a) Mr Istratii's medical treatment while
in detention
Between
12 November 2004 and 23 February 2005 Mr Istratii was held in the
remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and
Corruption in Chişinău (CFECC).
Until
11 February 2004 there were allegedly no medical personnel in that
institution. The applicant had an acute crisis of paraproctitis with
rectal haemorrhage on 18 November 2004. He was transported to a
hospital three hours after the incident. He was handcuffed to a wall
heater until his surgery on 19 November 2004 and was guarded at all
times by two CFECC officers.
Some
four hours after the operation, the CFECC officers accompanying him
requested his transfer to the Pruncul detainee hospital. The
applicant was admitted to the detainee hospital two and a half hours
after leaving the civil hospital where he had been operated upon.
Medical reports drawn up after the transfer confirm that Mr Istratii
complained about post-surgery problems in the months following his
transfer.
In
response to the applicant's lawyer's questions, Dr M.E., the surgeon
who had operated upon the applicant, wrote that the recovery period
after such surgery was typically about one month and that on
18 19 November 2004 the applicant had been handcuffed to a
wall heater at the request of CFECC officers, who had stayed in his
hospital room. According to Dr M.E., the patient could not move after
the surgery because of pain and the risk of bleeding.
The
Government annexed to their observations of January 2006 an
explanatory note written by Dr M.E. The doctor explained that Mr
Istratii had not been handcuffed during the surgery, but had been
handcuffed to a wall heater before surgery and that no ill-treatment
of any kind had been applied to him. The doctor confirmed that a
one-month recovery period was necessary after surgery of the type
undergone by the applicant.
(b) Conditions of detention of all three
applicants in the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice
On
23 February 2005 all three applicants were transferred to the remand
centre of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău (also known
as prison no. 3). According to the applicants, they were
detained in inhuman and degrading conditions there (see paragraphs
61-65 below).
The
conditions in this particular remand centre were reviewed three times
by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT, see paragraph 29 below).
The problem of overcrowding and insufficiency of funding for repairs,
meat, fish, dairy products and bedding was also emphasised in two
domestic reports (see paragraph 28 below).
5. Alleged interference with communication between the
applicants and their lawyers
The
applicants' lawyers asked for permission to have confidential
meetings with their clients. They were offered a room where they were
separated by a glass wall and allegedly had to shout to hear each
other. It appears from the photographs and video recording submitted
by the Government that in the lawyer-client meeting room of the CFECC
detention centre, the space for detainees is separated from the rest
of the room by a door and a window. The window appears to be made of
two plates of glass. Both plates have small holes pierced with a
drill; however the holes do not coincide so that nothing can be
passed though the window. Moreover, there is a dense green net made
either of thin wire or plastic between the glass plates, covering the
pierced area of the window. There appears to be no space for passing
documents between a lawyer and his client.
According
to the applicants, they were able to hear conversations between other
detainees and their lawyers, which made them refrain from discussing
at length their cases. The Government did not dispute this.
II. RELEVANT NON-CONVENTION MATERIALS
A. Domestic law and practice
The
relevant domestic law has been set out in the case of Sarban
v. Moldova (no.3456/05, §§ 51-56, 4
October 2005).
In
addition, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
read as follows:
“Article 176
“(1) Preventive measures may be applied
by the prosecuting authority or by the court only in those cases
where there are sufficient reasonable grounds for believing that an
accused ... will abscond, obstruct the establishment of the truth
during the criminal proceedings or re-offend, or they can be applied
by the court in order to ensure the enforcement of a sentence.
(2) Detention on remand and alternative
preventive measures may be imposed only in cases concerning offences
in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence
exceeding two years. In cases concerning offences in respect of which
the law provides for a custodial sentence of less than two years,
they may be applied if ... the accused has already committed the acts
mentioned in paragraph (1).
(3) In deciding on the necessity of applying
preventive measures, the prosecuting authority and the court will
take into consideration the following additional criteria:
1) the character and degree of harm caused by
the offence,
2) the character of the ... accused,
3) his/her age and state of health,
4) his/her occupation,
5) his/her family status and existence of any
dependants,
6) his/her economic status,
7) the existence of a permanent place of
abode,
8) other essential circumstances.
Article 186
(3) In exceptional circumstances, depending
on the complexity of the criminal case and the gravity of the crime
and where there is a risk that the accused will abscond or put
pressure on witnesses, destroy or tamper with evidence, the period of
pre-trial detention during the criminal investigation may be
prolonged...”
Between
1 and 3 December 2004 the Moldovan Bar Association held a
strike, refusing to attend any procedures regarding persons detained
in the remand centre of the CFECC until the administration had agreed
to provide lawyers with rooms for confidential meetings with their
clients. The demands of the Bar Association were refused (see Sarban
v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 126, 4 October 2005).
On
26 March 2005 the Moldovan Bar Association held a meeting at which
the President of the Bar Association and another lawyer informed the
participants that they had taken part, together with representatives
of the Ministry of Justice, in a commission which had inspected the
CFECC detention centre. During the inspection they asked that the
glass partition be taken down in order to check that there were no
listening devices. They pointed out that it would only be necessary
to remove several screws and they proposed that all the expenses
linked to the verification be covered by the Bar Association. The
CFECC administration rejected the proposal.
On
24 October 2003 the Parliament adopted decision no. 415-XV, regarding
the National Plan of Action in the Sphere of Human Rights for
2004-2008. The plan includes a number of objectives for 2004-2008
aimed at improving the conditions of detention, including the
reduction of overcrowding, improvement of medical treatment,
involvement in work and reintegration of detainees, as well as the
training of personnel. Regular reports are to be drawn up on the
implementation of the Plan.
At an unspecified date the Ministry of Justice adopted its “Report
on the implementing by the Ministry of Justice of Chapter 14 of the
National Plan of Action in the Sphere of Human Rights for 2004-2008,
approved by the Parliament Decision no. 415-XV of 24 October 2003”.
On 25 November 2005 the Parliamentary Commission for Human
Rights adopted a report on the implementation of the National Plan of
Action. Both those reports confirmed the insufficient funding and
related deficiencies and the failure to implement fully the action
plan in respect of most of the remand centres in Moldova, including
Prison no. 3 in Chişinău. The first of these reports
mentioned, inter alia, that “as long as the aims and
actions in [the National Plan of Action] do not have the necessary
financial support ... it will remain only a good attempt of the State
to observe human rights, described in Parliament Decision no. 415-XV
of 24 October 2003, the fate of which is non-implementation, or
partial implementation”. On 28 December 2005 the Parliament
adopted its decision no. 370-XVI “Concerning the results of the
verification by the special Parliament Commission regarding the
situation of persons detained pending trial in the remand centre no.
13 of the Penitentiaries Department whose cases are pending before
the courts”. The decision found, inter alia, that “the
activity of the Ministry of Justice in the field of ensuring
conditions of detention does not correspond to the requirements of
the legislation in force.”
B. Non-Convention material
1. Findings of the CPT
The
relevant findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), read
as follows (unofficial translation):
a. Visit to Moldova of 11-21 October 1998
(unofficial translation)
“76. Although not a deliberate ill-treatment, the
CPT is compelled to point out that at prison No. 3,
the vast majority of prisoners were subjected to a combination of
negative factors - overcrowding, appalling material and hygiene
conditions, virtually non-existent activity programmes - which could
easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment.
In contrast, in all the other detention areas, living
conditions of the vast majority of the prison population left a
considerable amount to be desired. In the most of the cells, the
living space per prisoner was well below the minimum standard set and
the cramming in of persons had reached an intolerable level. ... In
addition, the delegation observed that cells of 8 m² to 9 m²
accommodated up to four people.
Furthermore, in these cells access to natural light was
very limited, artificial lighting was mediocre, and the air polluted
and rank. For prisoners still under investigation (i.e. over 700
prisoners), the situation was even worse, their cells being virtually
totally without access to natural light because of the thick external
metal blinds covering the windows. By force of circumstances, the
equipment was reduced to the bare minimum, comprising metal or bunk
beds which were extremely rudimentary and in a poor state, and a
table and one or two benches. Furthermore, in many cells, there were
not enough beds and prisoners had to share them or sleep in turns. In
addition, the bedding was in a bad condition; the very small stocks
of mattresses, blankets and sheets was not enough and many prisoners
without family or resources had to sleep just on the bed frame and/or
the mattress.
The cells had a sanitary annex, a real source of
infection. Above the Asian toilet was a tap which served both as a
flush and as a source of water which prisoners could use to freshen
up or wash. Moreover, this area was only partially partitioned by a
small low wall less than one metre high, which meant that it was not
possible to preserve one's privacy.
The state of repair and cleanliness in the cell blocks,
overall, was also of considerable concern. In addition, many of the
cells were infested with cockroaches and other vermin and some
prisoners also complained that there were rodents.
To sum up, the living and hygiene conditions for the
vast majority of the prison population were execrable and, more
particularly, constituted a serious health risk.”
b. Visit to Moldova of 10-22 June 2001
(unofficial translation)
“37. The CPT recommends that the right
of access to a lawyer as from the very outset of custody be rendered
fully effective in practice. It also recommends that detainees be
able to receive visits from lawyers in conditions fully ensuring the
confidentiality of the discussions. ...
70. In certain prisons, particularly those
serving as remand establishments, the situation was exacerbated by
sometimes severe overcrowding (as at Prison No. 3 in Chişinău,
which in 2001 held 1,892 prisoners, compared with an official
capacity of 1,480. ...
The 2001 visit showed how urgent it is for the
authorities to put their plans for legislative reforms into effect;
the extension of the prison estate does not constitute a solution. As
already stressed in the previous CPT report, it is far more important
to revise the current legislation and practice concerning detention
on remand and sentencing and execution of sentences, and the range of
available non-custodial sentences. This is a sine qua non if
there is to be any hope in the near future of offering decent
conditions in prisons. ...
82. ... the follow-up visit to Prison No.
3 in Chişinău revealed positive changes which the CPT
welcomes. It particularly approves of the removal of the heavy blinds
covering the windows of cells looking onto the interior of the
establishment.
That said, the appalling living conditions and state of
hygiene in buildings I, II and III, including the transit cells,
described in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the previous report, had not
changed (except as far as access to natural light is concerned).
Indeed, the acute overcrowding in these buildings exacerbated matters
still further. In the few cells viewed that were properly equipped
and fitted out, this was due to the prisoners themselves, who had
been able to procure what was needed from their families.”
c. Visit to Moldova of 20-30 September
2004 (unofficial translation)
“b. Remand Centre of the Centre for
Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption
53. The material conditions in this remand
centre were in clear contrast to those in the remand centre of the
Ministry of Justice. The cells, approximately 14m2, could
accommodate a maximum of four detainees. They had access to daylight,
had sufficient artificial lighting and were well ventilated. They had
partially separated toilets and lavatories, as well as full bed linen
(mattress, sheets, pillow, blanket). ...
In sum, the material conditions in this remand centre
prove that it is clearly possible to ensure in Moldova adequate
material conditions of detention.
55. The situation in the majority of
penitentiaries visited, faced with the economic situation in the
country, remained difficult and one recounted a number of problems
already identified during the visits in 1998 and 2001 in terms of
material conditions and detention regimes.
Added to this is the problem of overcrowding, which
remains serious. In fact, even if the penitentiaries visited did not
work at their full capacity – as is the case of prison no. 3
in which the number of detainees was sensibly reduced in comparison
with that during the last visit of the Committee – they
continued to be extremely congested. In fact, the accommodation
capacity was still based on a very criticisable 2m2 per
detainee; in practice often even less.
77. The follow-up visit to Prison no. 3 in
Chişinău does not give rise to satisfaction. The progress
found was in fact minimal, limited to some current repair. The repair
of the ventilation system could be done due primarily to the
financial support of civil society (especially NGOs), and the
creation of places for daily walk was due to support by the detainees
and their families.
The repair, renovation and maintenance of cells is
entirely the responsibility of detainees themselves and of their
families, who also pay for the necessary materials. They must also
obtain their own bed sheets and blankets, the institution being able
to give them only used mattresses.
79. ... In sum, the conditions of life in the
great majority of cells in Blocks I-II and the transit cells continue
to be miserable. ...
Finally, despite the drastic reduction of the
overcrowding, one still observes a very high, even intolerable, level
of occupancy rate in the cells.
83. ... everywhere the quantity and quality
of detainees' food constitutes a source of high preoccupation. The
delegation was flooded with complaints regarding the absence of meat,
dairy products. The findings of the delegation, regarding both the
food stock and the communicated menus, confirm the credibility of
these complaints. Its findings also confirmed that in certain places
(in Prison no.3, ...), the food served was repulsive and virtually
inedible (for instance, presence of insects and vermin). This is not
surprising, given the general state of the kitchens and their modest
equipment.
Moldovan authorities have always emphasized financial
difficulties in ensuring the adequate feeding of detainees. However,
the Committee insists that this is a fundamental requirement of life
which must be ensured by the State to persons in its charge and that
nothing can exonerate it from such responsibility. ...”
2. Acts of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe
Resolution
(73) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 January 1973), insofar
as relevant, reads as follows:
“93. An untried prisoner shall be
entitled, as soon as he is imprisoned, to choose his legal
representative, or shall be allowed to apply for free legal aid where
such aid is available, and to receive visits from his legal adviser
with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him, and to
receive, confidential instructions. At his request he shall be given
all necessary facilities for this purpose. In particular, he shall be
given the free assistance of an interpreter for all essential
contacts with the administration and for his defence. Interviews
between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but
not within hearing, either direct or indirect, of a police or
institution official.”
Recommendation
Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the
European Prison Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11
January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies),
insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“23.1 All prisoners are entitled to
legal advice, and the prison authorities shall provide them with
reasonable facilities for gaining access to such advice.
...
23.4 Consultations and other communications
including correspondence about legal matters between prisoners and
their legal advisers shall be confidential. ...
23.6 Prisoners shall have access to, or be
allowed to keep in their possession, documents relating to their
legal proceedings.”
THE LAW
The
applicants complained about the conditions of their detention and the
lack of medical treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention,
which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
They
also submitted that the decisions ordering their pre-trial detention
had not been taken by an “investigating judge” as
required by law. They also complained about the insufficient reasons
given by the courts for their decisions ordering the applicants'
pre-trial detention. Article 5 § 3 reads as follows:
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this
Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release
may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
The
applicants also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that
conversations with their lawyers were conducted through a glass wall
and were overheard or possibly even recorded and that the authorities
had failed to provide proper conditions for private discussions with
their lawyers. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to
be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v.
Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1998 I, § 44), decided to examine
the problem raised by the applicants under Article 5 § 4 of
the Convention and to obtain the parties' submissions thereon.
The
relevant part of Article 5 § 4 reads:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the
lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and
his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”
I. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
In
their initial applications the applicants complained
under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the judges
who ordered and then prolonged their detention on remand were not
“investigating judges” as required by the law and were
not competent to order their release.
However, in
their observations of December 2005 the applicants expressed their
wish to withdraw this complaint in the light of the findings in
Sarban, cited above. The Court will not therefore examine the
complaint.
The
Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted all the
domestic remedies available to them. In particular they could have,
but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the
Constitution, Article 1405 of the Civil Code and of Law 1545.
The case of Duca (cited in Sarban, §§ 57-59),
who had received compensation at the domestic level on the basis of
Law 1545, confirmed that possibility.
The
Court notes that it has examined a preliminary exception based on the
same argument in Sarban (cited above, §§
57-62) and has found that the remedies relied on by the Government
were not effective in that case, which concerned similar complaints
under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. It finds that the
Government have not submitted any arguments which would persuade it
to depart from its conclusions in that case, or for distinguishing
the present applications.
In
view of the above, the Court concludes that the applications cannot
be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Accordingly the Government's objection must be dismissed.
The
Court considers that the applicants' complaints under Article 3
and Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention raise questions
of law which are sufficiently serious that their determination should
depend on an examination of the merits, and no other grounds for
declaring them inadmissible have been established. The Court
therefore declares these complaints admissible. Pursuant to Article
29 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 5 above), the Court will
now consider the merits of these complaints.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the lack of medical assistance in the
remand centre of the CFECC between 12 November 2004 and 11 February
2005 and the conditions of their detention in the remand centre of
the Ministry of Justice after 23 February 2005 amounted to inhuman
and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
A. Arguments of the parties
1. Conditions of detention and the alleged lack of
medical treatment in the CFECC remand centre
a. The applicants
Mr
Burcovschi and Mr Luţcan made general
complaints about the lack of medical assistance in the CFECC remand
centre. They did not claim that they had any specific need of such
assistance or that they were denied such assistance when they
requested it.
Mr
Istratii complained in particular that when he had had a medical
emergency, which included serious bleeding, on 18 November 2004 he
was not taken to a hospital until three hours after he had asked for
help. In addition, he complained about the permanent presence of
CFECC officers in his hospital room, about the fact that he had been
held handcuffed while in the hospital, and that he was transported to
a detainee hospital shortly after surgery even though he had not
sufficiently recovered.
b. The Government
The
Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicants had
been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article 3
of the Convention. Any suffering they might have experienced did not
exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the CFECC
remand centre were appropriate. A doctor was employed there. In case
of an emergency, detainees could be taken to a nearby hospital (in
Sarban, cited above, the Government specified that the
Municipal Emergencies Clinical Hospital was situated 500 metres from
the CFECC remand centre), as happened on 18 November 2004 in the case
of Mr Istratii. There was no obligation under the Court's case-law to
transfer detainees outside their places of detention if they were
offered appropriate medical assistance there.
In
respect of the treatment of Mr Istratii on 18-19 November 2004, the
Government submitted that his illness had been contracted before his
detention and that the CEFCC authorities reacted immediately to his
request for medical assistance, transferring him to a hospital. His
state of health was not very grave since he was not operated upon on
the day of his admission to the hospital but on the next day.
Furthermore, he could walk without assistance and was obviously
conscious.
The
Government considered that Mr Istratii had not been handcuffed during
surgery, and Dr M.E.'s note confirmed that (see paragraph 19 above).
The applicant was taken to a detainee hospital four hours after
surgery, which gave him sufficient time for recovery. He was not
bleeding or unconscious and was in a relatively good condition during
the transfer.
c. The Court's assessment
The
Court recalls that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must
attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope
of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the
nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of
the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and
mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health
of the victim (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,
§ 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Sarban, cited
above, §§ 75 et seq.).
Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into
account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase
the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead
to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (Peers
v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
Although
Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a
general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it
nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the
physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example
by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Hurtado
v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A,
opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79). The Court has
also emphasised the right of all prisoners to conditions of detention
which are compatible with human dignity, so as to ensure that the
manner and method of execution of the measures imposed do not subject
them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the
unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention; in addition,
besides the health of prisoners, their well-being also has to be
adequately secured, given the practical demands of imprisonment (see
Kudła, cited above, § 94).
The
applicants complained about the lack of medical assistance while they
were detained in the CFECC remand centre. The Court recalls that in
the Sarban case cited above (§ 81), the Government did
not submit any evidence of the presence in the remand centre of any
medical personnel before 11 February 2005. They have not submitted
any such evidence in the instant case either.
Two
of the applicants did not claim that they needed any medical
assistance either on a regular basis or for any emergency (see
paragraph 42 above). The Court considers that the lack of medical
assistance in circumstances where such assistance was not needed
cannot, of itself, amount to a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention.
On
the other hand, Mr Istratii asked for medical assistance on
18 November 2004, when he had an acute paraproctitis with rectal
haemorrhage. He was transported to a hospital three hours later (see
paragraph 18 above).
It
is common ground between the parties that Mr Istratii had contracted
his illness well before his arrest. He was thus aware of the risks
associated with any aggravation of his state of health. At the same
time, on 18 November 2004 when he had an acute crisis, he had no
possibility to obtain immediate medical assistance as there were no
medical personnel in the CFECC remand centre (see paragraph 48
above).
Despite
the assurances of the Government that in case of an emergency urgent
medical assistance could be given without delay by calling an
ambulance and transporting the patient to a nearby hospital (see
paragraph 43 above), no explanation was offered for the three-hour
delay before such assistance was given. While it was eventually
determined that the crisis had not been very dangerous, the applicant
had been left in pain and in a state of anxiety throughout that
period, not knowing exactly what his condition was and when he would
be given qualified medical assistance.
In
this respect, the Court recalls its finding in the Sarban case
cited above (§ 87 in fine) that “in order for a
call for an ambulance to be made the CFECC administration had first
to give permission, a difficult decision to take in the absence of
professional medical advice”. The present case reinforces the
Court's view on this issue, given the delay in calling the ambulance.
It
follows that the applicant was not given timely medical assistance in
the CFECC remand centre and was left in a state of anxiety in respect
of his health.
Mr
Istratii also complained about his transfer to a detainee hospital
without leaving him time for recovery and about his handcuffing while
in hospital. The Court notes that less than four hours after the
surgery the applicant was taken to a detainee hospital and that the
transfer took two and a half hours (see paragraph 18 above). It also
notes that the recovery period after such surgery is one month and
that, according to Dr M.E., who had operated upon the applicant, the
latter could not move independently after the surgery due to pain and
a risk of bleeding (see paragraph 19 above).
In
such conditions, where there was no risk of the applicant's fleeing
and where the recovery time allowed was very short whereas the
journey time was relatively long, the Court is not convinced that any
concerns about the applicant's possible escape should have outweighed
the clear need to ensure his recovery.
The
Court notes that the Government gave no explanation for the need to
handcuff the applicant, except to emphasise that he had not been
handcuffed during surgery. Indeed, the applicant's medical condition
(both before and after surgery) effectively excluded any risk of
fleeing or of causing violence, as noted in paragraph 54 above, and
there was no claim that he had any record of violence. In such
circumstances, and in light of the further fact that two CFECC
officers guarded the applicant in his hospital room, his handcuffing
to a wall heater was disproportionate to the needs of security and
unjustifiably humiliated him, whether or not that had been the
intention (cf. Mouisel v. France, no.
67263/01, § 47, ECHR 2002 IX; Henaf v. France,
no. 65436/01, § 52, ECHR 2003 XI).
In
the Court's view, the failure to provide immediate medical assistance
to the applicant in an emergency situation, as well as his transfer
to another hospital before he could sufficiently recover, together
with his humiliation by being handcuffed while in hospital, amounted
to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of
the Convention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94;
Farbtuhs v. Latvia, cited above, § 51; Nevmerzhitsky
v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 106, 5 April 2005).
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in
respect of Mr Istratii. There has been no violation of the same
Article in this respect in the case of Mr Burcovschi and Mr Luţcan
as regards the lack of medical assistance in the CFECC remand centre.
2. The applicants' conditions of detention in the
remand centre of the Ministry of Justice
a. The applicants
The
applicants complained that the conditions of detention in the remand
centre of the Ministry of Justice were inhuman and degrading (see
paragraph 20 above).
In
particular, they complained about overcrowding, their cells measuring
10m2 and holding between 4 and 6 detainees (thus, the
personal space available varied between 1.6 and 2.5 m2).
Periodically, a seventh detainee was placed in Mr Istratii's cell and
slept on the floor. According to a diagram of the cell drawn by the
applicants' lawyer, most of the surface of the cell was occupied by
three bunk beds, a toilet and a table, leaving a very small space in
the middle of the cell.
In
the absence of chairs, all detainees had to eat standing up. In
Mr Luţcan's cell the table was
situated next to the toilet. The toilet did not have a cistern. A
hose was used for flushing and cleaning the toilet, washing hands and
preparing food. There was no water supply during the night, which
made detainees refrain from using the toilet so as to limit bad
smells in the cell.
The
cell window was covered with three layers of iron netting of various
sizes, the combined effect of which was to block out most of the sun
light. Ventilation was never switched on. During winter it was very
cold in the cell (12ºC). Electricity was only switched on during
several hours a day and this made it difficult to prepare food.
Detainees were allowed to take a bath only every two weeks.
The
medical assistance was mediocre due to the poor financing of the
medical service in prisons (limited to EUR 64,000 a year for all
prisons). Bed linen was only available to 25% of detainees and most
of it had been overused. No clothes or shoes were given to the
detainees by the prison administration.
The
food served was of very poor quality; the budget reserved for feeding
detainees was EUR 0.28 a day per person or 30% of the minimum as
estimated by the authorities. Meat, fish and dairy products were
given only to vulnerable persons, the rest of the detainees receiving
them “within the availability of funds”, as confirmed by
a report of the Ministry of Justice.
The
applicants relied on the Court's finding of a violation of Article 3
in the case of Ostrovar v. Moldova (no.
35207/03, 13 September 2005) which concerned the conditions of
detention in the same prison as in the present case. They
further relied on the findings of the CPT in its 1998, 2001 and 2004
visits to that institution, and on the findings of the various
domestic reports (see paragraph 28 above).
b. The Government
The
Government submitted that the conditions of detention in the remand
centre were acceptable: there was access to daylight, sufficient
ventilation, a water tap, and a toilet (separated by a lateral wall)
in each cell, as well as heating. Detainees were allowed to use their
own television sets and radios, had access to sports facilities and
daily one-hour walks. They were given food corresponding to their
needs in accordance with the levels established by the Government,
including meat and fish “depending on availability”. They
could also purchase food and personal hygiene products (limited to
EUR 12 per month) and could receive packages once a month. In
addition, there was no intention on the part of the remand
authorities to subject detainees to inhuman or degrading treatment
and sustained efforts had been made to improve the conditions of
detention. A number of decisions and action plans had been adopted to
that effect (see paragraph 27 above).
c. The Court's assessment
68. The
Court notes that the conditions of detention in the remand centre of
the Ministry of Justice were reviewed by the CPT in 1998, 2001
and 2004 and that on each occasion serious shortcomings were found,
despite some recent repairs, mostly funded by the detainees
themselves or charitable organisations (see paragraph 29 above).
Those findings are corroborated by the various reports prepared by
the domestic authorities (see paragraph 28 above).
While
the Court does not exclude the possibility of improvements in the
conditions of detention between the visit by the CPT in September
2004 and the applicants' detention in February-April 2005, the
Government have not submitted any evidence of such improvements.
It
notes that some of the applicants' claims (whether ventilation was
switched on, electricity and water were periodically switched off,
the low cell temperature) cannot be verified since they are denied by
the Government and there is no other confirmation of the real state
of affairs. However, other complaints coincide with the findings of
the CPT, which the Court takes as a starting point, subject to any
evidence to the contrary provided by the Government. In particular,
the Court notes that the latest CPT report confirmed a “very
high, even intolerable” occupancy rate of around 2m2
per detainee (see paragraph 29 above). This coincides with the
applicants' claim that they had between 1.6 m2 and 2.5 m2
of space in the cells. In addition, the applicants' claim that the
food was of bad quality and insufficient quantity coincides with the
findings of the CPT that “the food served was repulsive and
virtually inedible” and contained rodents and insects. The
applicants supported their claims with reference to reports of the
domestic authorities (see paragraph 28 above), which confirmed, inter
alia, both the overcrowding in prisons and the insufficient
funding which meant that only limited quantities of food were
available. The domestic reports referred to above also confirmed the
very limited availability of bedding, most of which was inadequate
through overuse. The Government have not commented on the applicants'
claim that the three layers of iron netting on the cell windows
denied them access to natural light. They limited themselves to
stating that there was access to daylight. The Government made no
comment either on the number of detainees in the cells. The Court
notes that the applicants spent 23 hours a day during more than two
months in the conditions described above (see paragraph 67 above).
The
Court considers that their conditions of detention in prison no. 3,
principally the overcrowding and insufficient quantity and quality of
food, the lack of adequate bedding and the very limited access to
daylight, as well as the insufficient sanitary conditions in the cell
amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of
Article 3 of the Convention.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 in respect of all three
applicants.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the decisions
ordering their detention on remand and its prolongation, as well as
the decisions rejecting their habeas corpus requests, were not
based on relevant and sufficient reasons. The courts had essentially
cited the provisions of the law and did not react in any way to the
applicants' arguments against each of the grounds of detention on
remand, failing to give detailed reasons as to why any ground was
well-founded in each case.
The
Government submitted that the domestic courts gave sufficiently
detailed reasons for their decisions, given that the existence of a
reasonable suspicion sufficed to justify detention at the
investigation stage and there was no obligation to submit proof of
the guilt of those accused of a crime.
The
Government added that the investigation into the applicants' cases
revealed their participation in a number of similar crimes and that
they had attempted to influence certain witnesses in order to
convince them to make false statements. In addition, certain
witnesses offered documents to the applicants in exchange for money,
which demonstrated that those witnesses were prone to influence.
The
Court recalls that “the persistence of reasonable suspicion
that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine
qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after
a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the
Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial
authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where
such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”,
the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national
authorities displayed 'special diligence' in the conduct of the
proceedings” (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.
26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000 IV).
The
Court also recalls that it has found a violation of Article 5 §
3 of the Convention in Sarban v. Moldova (cited above, §
104). Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court
considers that the file does not contain any element which would
allow it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In
particular, the Court notes that the domestic courts gave no
consideration to any of the applicants' arguments in their decisions,
even though they were obliged to consider such factors under Article
176 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 24
above). Moreover, according to Article 186 § 3 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 24 above), prolongation of
detention on remand is to be ordered only “in exceptional
circumstances”. None of the courts prolonging the applicants'
detention appears to have identified any exceptional circumstances
requiring such a prolongation. It is, moreover, surprising that
it was only on 29 April 2005 that a court ordered the applicant's
release on grounds which had been invoked by them from the outset of
their detention (see paragraph 16 above). This would appear to
confirm that no proper consideration was given by the courts to the
justification for the applicants' continued detention before that
date.
There
has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained about the interference by the remand centre
authorities with their right to communicate in confidence with their
lawyers.
1. Arguments of the parties
The applicants submitted that they were able to talk
to their lawyers only through a glass partition with holes which, due
to bad acoustics, required them to shout and thus created the risk of
being overheard by CFECC officers and other inmates. They claimed to
have heard conversations between other detainees and their lawyers
during such visits, which created an additional restraint on the
contents of their discussions with the lawyers, thus greatly reducing
the efficiency of their defence. They also learned from another
detainee that he had been asked to give explanations about the
contents of a discussion with his lawyer. The Government have not
disputed these submissions. It was not until February 2005, after
their transfer to another remand centre where they could speak freely
to their lawyers that the latter were able to prepare a good defence
case, as a result of which the applicants were released in April
2005.
The
applicants submitted a copy of a decision of the Moldovan Bar
Association to hold a strike on 1-3 December 2004, refusing to
attend any procedural hearings regarding persons detained in the
remand centre of the CFECC until the administration had agreed to
provide lawyers with rooms for confidential meetings with their
clients (see paragraph 25 above). The applicants claimed that there
was a widely held suspicion amongst lawyers that their discussions
with their clients detained at CFECC could be overheard and any
information so obtained could be used against their clients.
The
Government submitted that in their initial applications the
applicants had complained under Article 8 only in respect of the
alleged interference with their right to communicate with their
lawyers, and had only asked the Court to consider the issue under
Article 5 § 4 in the light of the subsequent Sarban
judgment. This should, in their view, preclude the Court from
examining this complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
They
also submitted that domestic law ensured the right to confidential
meetings with lawyers without any limitation on their number and
duration (the applicants having used that right on a number of
occasions), and ensured the safety of the applicants and of their
lawyers. Due to the dangerous character of the crimes dealt with by
the CFECC, its remand centre had to be equipped with a room for
meetings where lawyers and their clients were separated by a glass
partition with holes allowing normal discussion. Moreover, the
absence of a physical obstacle between the lawyer and the client
would allow lawyers to counterfeit documents by having them signed by
their clients at the CFECC. The Government emphasised that the room
had never been equipped with any technical means of recording or
listening, as proved by the photos and video recording from the
CFECC.
They
relied on this Court's judgment in Sarban, cited above
(§ 131), as well as the Chişinău Regional Court's
decision of 3 December 2004 in response to a similar complaint
(Sarban, cited above, § 127). Moreover, after their
transfer to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice, the
applicants were able to freely communicate with their lawyers as
there was no glass partition in the meeting room there.
2. The Court's assessment
Insofar
as the Government's objection to the examination of this complaint
under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is concerned, the Court
repeats that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law
to the facts of the case (see paragraph 34 above). Since the
applicants were in essence complaining that due to the glass
partition in the lawyer-client meeting room he could not confer in
private with his lawyer about issues related to the proceedings
concerning his right to liberty, the Court considers that Article 5 §
4 is the more appropriate Article in this instance.
In
Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005 ...
the Court summarised the principles arising from its case-law on
Article 5 § 4 as follows:
“(a) Article 5 § 4
of the Convention entitles an arrested or detained person to
institute proceedings bearing on the procedural and substantive
conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in
Convention terms, of their deprivation of liberty (see, among many
others, Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of
29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, § 65).
(b) Although it is not always
necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be
attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 of
the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a
judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of
deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov
and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VIII, p. 3302, § 162,
and Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125,
ECHR 2000-XI, both with reference to Megyeri v. Germany,
judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237 A, p. 11, §
22).
(c) The proceeedings must be
adversarial and must always ensure “equality of arms”
between the parties (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of
30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, § 29).
In case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article
5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v.
Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999 II;
Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references
to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979,
Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30 31; Sanchez-Reisse
v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A
no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece,
judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318 B,
p. 45, § 47).
(d) Furthermore, Article 5 §
4 requires that a person detained on remand be able to take
proceedings at reasonable intervals to challenge the lawfulness of
his detention (see Assenov and Others, cited above, p.
3302, § 162, with a reference to Bezicheri v. Italy,
judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, pp. 10-11, §§
20-21).”
Article
6 has been found to have some application at the pre-trial stage
(see, for instance, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of
24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, and John
Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996,
Reports, 1996 I, p. 54, § 62) during which
the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention typically takes
place. However, this application is limited to certain aspects.
The
guarantees provided in Article 6 concerning access to a lawyer have
been found to be applicable in habeas corpus proceedings (see
for example Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24
October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 60). In Bouamar v.
Belgium, (judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, §60),
the Court held that it was essential not only that the individual
concerned should have the opportunity to be heard in person but that
he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer.
The Court's task in the present case is to decide
whether the applicants were able to receive effective assistance from
their lawyers so as to satisfy these requirements.
One
of the key elements in a lawyer's effective representation of a
client's interests is the principle that the confidentiality of
information exchanged between them must be protected. This privilege
encourages open and honest communication between clients and lawyers.
The Court recalls that it has previously held that confidential
communication with one's lawyer is protected by the Convention as an
important safeguard of one's right to defence (see, for instance,
Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992,
Series A no. 233, § 46 and Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see
paragraph 31 above)).
Indeed,
if a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive
confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his
assistance would lose much of its usefulness, whereas the Convention
is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective
(see, inter alia, the Artico v. Italy judgment of
13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).
The
Court considers that an interference with the lawyer-client privilege
and, thus, with a detainee's right to defence, does not necessarily
require an actual interception or eavesdropping to have taken place.
A genuine belief held on reasonable grounds that their discussion was
being listened to might be sufficient, in the Court's view, to limit
the effectiveness of the assistance which the lawyer could provide.
Such a belief would inevitably inhibit a free discussion between
lawyer and client and hamper the detained person's right effectively
to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
The
Court must therefore establish whether the applicants and their
lawyers had a genuine belief held on reasonable grounds that their
conversation in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room was not
confidential. It appears from the applicants' submissions that their
fear of having their conversations with their lawyers intercepted was
genuine. The Court will also consider whether an objective, fair
minded and informed observer would have feared interception of
lawyer-client discussions or eavesdropping in the CFECC meeting room.
The
Court notes that the problem of alleged lack of confidentiality of
lawyer-client communications in the CFECC detention centre was a
matter of serious concern for the entire community of lawyers in
Moldova for a long time and that it had even been the cause of strike
organised by the Moldovan Bar Association (see paragraph 25 above).
The Bar's requests to verify the presence of interception devices in
the glass partition was rejected by the CFECC administration (see
paragraph 26 above), and that appears to have contributed to the
lawyers' suspicion. Such concern and protest by the Bar Association
would, in the Court's view, have been sufficient to raise a doubt
about confidentiality in the mind of an objective observer.
The
applicants' reference to their own experience of having overheard
discussions between other detainees and their lawyers (see paragraph
80 above) is far from proving that surveillance was carried out in
the CFECC meeting room. However, against the background of the
general concern of the Bar Association, such speculation might be
enough to increase the concerns of the objective observer.
Accordingly, the Court's conclusion is that the
applicants and their lawyers could reasonably have had grounds to
believe that their conversations in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting
room were not confidential.
Moreover,
the Court notes that, contrary to the Government's contention to the
effect that the applicants and their lawyers could easily exchange
documents, the pictures provided by the Government (see paragraphs 21
and 83 above) show that this was not the case because of the lack of
any aperture in the glass partition. This, in the Court's view,
rendered the lawyers' task even more difficult.
The
Court recalls that in the case of Sarban v. Moldova it
dismissed a somewhat similar complaint, examined under Article 8 of
the Convention, because the applicant had failed to furnish evidence
in support of his complaint and because the Court considered that the
obstacles to effective communication between the applicant and his
lawyer did not impede him from mounting an effective defence before
the domestic authorities. However, having regard to the further
information at its disposal concerning the real impediments created
by the glass partition to confidential discussions and exchange of
documents between lawyers and their clients detained in the CFECC,
the Court is now persuaded that the existence of the glass partition
prejudices the rights of the defence.
The
Government referred to the case of Kröcher and Möller
v. Switzerland in which the fact that the lawyer and his
clients were separated by a glass partition was found not to violate
the right to confidential communications. The Court notes that the
applicants in that case were accused of extremely violent acts and
were considered very dangerous. However, in the present case the
applicants had no criminal record (see paragraph 10 above) and were
prosecuted for non-violent offences. Moreover, it appears that no
consideration was given to the character of the detainees in the
CFECC detention centre. The glass partition was a general measure
affecting indiscriminately everyone in the remand centre, regardless
of their personal circumstances.
The
security reasons invoked by the Government are not convincing as
there is nothing in the file to confirm the existence of a security
risk. Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances where supervision of
lawyer-client meetings would be justified, visual supervision of
those meetings would be sufficient for such purposes.
In
the light of the above, the Court considers that the impossibility
for the applicants to discuss with their lawyers issues directly
relevant to their defence and to challenging his detention on remand,
without being separated by a glass partition, affected their right to
defence.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicants claimed the following amounts in compensation for the
non-pecuniary damage caused to them: EUR 11,000 for Mr Istratii
and EUR 8,000 each for Mr Burcovschi and Mr Luţcan.
They cited the Court's case-law to prove that comparable amounts had
been awarded for violations of Article 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The
Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicants,
arguing that it was excessive in light of the case-law of the Court.
They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicants dealt with
situations which had nothing in common with their cases in terms of
the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on
the applicants and the attitude of the State authorities.
The
Court considers that the applicants must have been caused a certain
amount of anxiety and suffering, notably because the courts ordered
their detention without giving relevant and sufficient reasons and
then allowed their detention, between 23 February and 29 April 2005,
in conditions which were inhuman and degrading. In addition, Mr
Luţcan was particularly affected as a
result of his inability to see his wife and newly-born child, and
Mr Istratii suffered pain and anxiety from the authorities'
failure to offer him timely medical assistance in an emergency
situation, was humiliated while in hospital and was exposed to a
danger to his health by being moved back into detention shortly after
his surgery.
In
light of the above and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court
awards EUR 4,000 to Mr Burcovschi, EUR 5,000 to Mr Luţcan
and EUR 6,000 to Mr Istratii in compensation for non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants claimed EUR 8,140 for legal costs and expenses. They
annexed a list of hours worked in preparing the case (amounting to
77 hours) and the hourly fee for each type of activity. They
referred to the fact that their lawyer had extensive experience in
the field of human rights. They included postal expenses for rapid
mail in their request, as well as an amount for tax.
The
Government considered these claims to be unjustified. They questioned
the need for researching the Court's case-law for 15 hours and the
number of hours spent on drafting the applicant's observations. The
Government questioned the nature and extent of the tax included since
they did not know what kind of tax was referred to.
The
Government emphasised the similarities in the three cases and between
them and Sarban, in which the applicant was represented by the
same lawyer. That lawyer must accordingly have spent less time
preparing the cases. They asked the Court to reject the applicant's
request for reimbursement of costs and expenses, as had been done in
a number of earlier cases.
The
Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed
under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and
necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (Croitoru
v. Moldova, no. 18882/02, § 35, 20 July 2004).
In
the present case, regard being had to the itemised list submitted by
the applicants, the number of applicants and the number and
complexity of the issues dealt with, the Court awards a total of EUR
4,000 for the combined legal costs and expenses of all the
applicants.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares admissible the applications;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention in respect of the insufficient medical treatment and
humiliation of Mr Istratii and no violation in respect of the
other two applicants;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention in respect of each applicant as regards the
conditions of their detention in prison no. 3;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the insufficiency of the
reasons given for the detention of each applicant;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the interference with the
right of each of the applicants to communicate with his lawyer under
conditions of confidentiality;
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,000 (four
thousand euros) to Mr Burcovschi, EUR 5,000 (five thousand
euros) to Mr Luţcan and EUR 6,000 (six
thousand euros) to Mr Istratii for non-pecuniary damage
and EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may
be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 March 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy
Registrar President