THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 45887/06 and 78356/11 Gheorghe ANDREI against Romania and Florin Constantin MATEI against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 November 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Alvina Gyulumyan , Ján Šikuta , Luis López Guerra , Nona Tsotsoria , Kristina Pardalos , Johannes Silvis , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy S ection Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 3 November 2006 and 3 November 2011 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Mr Gheorghe Andrei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Oradea . He is represented before the Court by Mr Eugen Iordăchescu , a lawyer practising in Cluj Napoca .

The applicant in the second case, Mr Florin Constantin Matei , is a Romanian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Suceava . He is represented before the Court by Ms Angelica Enache , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

A. Gheorghe Andrei v. Romania , no. 45887/06

On 5 September 2006 the applicant was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor ’ s Office on suspicion of accepting bribes. On 6 September 2006 the Bihor County Court , acting upon a request lodged by the same prosecutor ’ s office ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for twenty ‑ nine days, after a thorough examination of the arguments rais ed by the parties on the issue.

The applicant contested the manner in which that preventive measure had been decided on, as well as its legality and appropriateness. He also repeatedly sought conditional release, but his requests were dismissed by the court.

Acting upon a request lodged by the applicant, on 24 October 2006 the Oradea Court of Appeal ord ered his release pending trial.

He was released on the same day.

The criminal investigations against the applican t received wide media coverage.

On 19 October 2006 the applicant ’ s apartment was searched by police officers acting under the authorisation of the Prosecutor ’ s O ffice.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant on the merits are currently pending in the court of last resort, the High Co urt of Cassation and Justice.

The applicant spent the seven weeks of his pre-trial detention in Salonta Prison. According to the applicant, he shared a cell measuring 3 sq. m with three other detainees. The cell had a 20 x 40 cm window facing north. The natural light was inadequate. It was therefore supplemented by a weak light bulb which remained switched on at all times. It was very cold in the cell during the night time. He had to sleep on an iron bed with a thin mattress. The cell was infested with lice. After 10 p.m. the detainees could no longer use the toilets outside their cell, but had to use a bucket left in the cell for that purpose and which was emptied the next morning. There was no drinking water in the cell. The food was of poor quality and medical assistance was available only once a week. The applicant was taken out for a walk for one hour every day in a yard measuring 2.5 x 2.5 m. There was no radio or television available in the prison.

B. Matei v. Romania , no. 78356/11

The applicant, a border police officer, was accused of corruption. At 6 a.m. on 3 February 2011 police officers went to his home in Suceava , informed him that he was under investigation, searched his apartment, and then took him by bus to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor ’ s Office in Bucharest . During the eight-hour drive to Bucharest , the applicant was not offered any food or drink and the bus was followed by reporters who transmitted the events live via various television channels and on-line editions of newspapers.

At 4 am on 4 February 2011 the applicant was informed of the accusations against him and placed under arrest. On the same day, at the prosecutor ’ s request, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered his pre- trial detention for twenty-nine days, after a thorough examination of the arguments raised by the parties on the issue. The detention was extended three more times by court orders after an examination of the reasons for the extensions by the prosecutor. On 3 May 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered the applicant ’ s conditional release.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending on the merits before the domestic courts.

During his three-month detention the applicant was held in the Bucha rest Police detention facility.

The applicant describes the conditions of his detention as follows. He shared a cell with ten other persons, each having a personal space of 2 sq. m. The light was constantly on in the cell and there was no adequate ventilation, natural light or heat, nor satisfactory hygiene in the cell. The inmates were allowed to smoke in the cell and were not taken for outdoor exercise. Because of the overcrowding and the constant lighting, it was impossible for the applicant to get any proper sleep. During his detention he was not allowed to receive visits from his family, or even from his fiancée.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in the various detention facilities they were held in.

2. In addition, under Article 5 § § 1 and 3 of the Convention, Mr Andrei (no. 45887/06) complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and had not been based on sufficient evidence. Under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention he also complained that he had not received compensation for his unlawful arrest.

He further complained that the articles published in the press concerning the criminal investigations, as well as certain statements in the interlocutory judgments adopted by the courts, breached his right to the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

Lastly, Mr Andrei complained that the search of his apartment had breached his rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

3. Mr Matei complained that in ordering his pre-trial detention exclusively on the basis of the prosecution file and without allowing him to defend his case, the court had disregarded his right to be presumed innocent, his right to be promptly and exhaustively informed about the accusations brought against him, and his right to prepare his defence. He relied on Articles 5 § 1 (c) a nd 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (a) and (b).

He lastly alleged, under Article 5 of the Convention, that there had been no real justification for his detention and the courts had failed to give proper reasons for it.

THE LAW

A. Complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention

The applicants complained of the conditions of their detention in various Romanian detention facilities.

The Court considers that it cannot determine the admissibility of these complaints on the basis of the case file, and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.

B. Other complaints

The applicants raised several other complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention (see above).

However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants ’ complaints concerning the conditions of their detention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President