Communicated on 30 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30921/10 Valeriu GOREMICHIN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valeriu Goremichin , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Chişinău . He is represented before the Court by Mr R . Zadoinov , a lawyer practising in Chișinău .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. The applicant ’ s arrest and detention pending trial

On 23 July 2007 the Rîșcani District Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial for thirty days. He was charged with the offence of banditry, taking of hostages and blackmail while in Ukraine, in 1997-1998. The applicant was residing at the material time in Brussels, Belgium.

On 18 November 2008, the applicant was arrested in Brussels at the Moldovan authorities ’ request and placed in a Belgian prison pending extradition to Moldova.

On 5 October 2009 the applicant was extradited to the Moldovan authorities. On the same day he was brought before a judge ( Centru District Court), who confirmed the applicant ’ s detention warrant.

On 25 December 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant ’ s detention warrant for ninety days.

From then, the applicant ’ s detention warrant was prolonged every three months. Each time, the reasons for his detention were that it was an exceptional case, there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed serious offences punishable by imprisonment, the criminal case was complex and that if released the applicant could interfere with the investigation, influence the witnesses and victims, re-offend or abscond (as he possessed dual nationality and he had earlier been declared a wanted person).

On 20 May 2010 the applicant made a habeas corpus request, asking for his detention to be replaced with other preventive measure other than deprivation of liberty. The applicant ’ s lawyer also raised complaints about the impossibility of consulting with the applicant during the court hearings while not seated at the same desk next to him and referred to the denial by the court ’ s registry of the applicant ’ s request to receive copies of his case file. On 17 June 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s lawyer claims and on 21 June 2010 it prolonged the applicant ’ s detention warrant for another ninety days, relying on exactly the same reasons as before.

The applicant ’ s detention was extended for the last time before the lodging of the present application on 23 September 2011. The court decision was based on the same reasons as before and his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court on 6 October 2011.

As from the documents adduced to the file, the first instance trial court ( Bălți Court of Appeal) received the case-file for examination on 24 November 2010.

On 22 February 2012 the Bălți Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all the charges on the ground that the impugned offences had not been committed by him. The preventive measure in his respect was revoked, the applicant being released in the court room.

This decision became final on 9 March 2012 through the failure to appeal within the fifteen days ’ time-limit. On 6 April 2012 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision delivered by the Bălți Court of Appeal. The Prosecutor General ’ s Office did not ask for an extension of the time-limit for lodging its appeal.

On 21 December 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice admitted the Prosecutor General ’ s Office ’ s appeal on points of law, quashed the lower court ’ s judgment on the applicant ’ s acquittal and ordered a rehearing of the case. The Supreme Court did not examine the issue of the reason for missing that time-limit, nor did it find that the time-limit had not been missed.

The case was pending before the first-instance court in accordance with the latest information submitted to the Court.

B. Conditions of detention

The applicant was detained from 5 October 2009 to 23 October 2009 in the Department for Combating Organised Crimes. He was placed in a remand facility situated in a basement. The total surface was of 3 square metres, with no bed, chair, toilet facilities or washstand. He slept for four days on a concrete floor, using a bucket for his needs. In addition, the applicant had no daily walks outside his cell.

Four days later, the applicant was moved to cell no. 6 of the same detention facility. He was detained with two other inmates in a cell measuring 9 square metres for fifteen days. The applicant was held in similar conditions of detention as described above. He also claims that he was fed only one time per day with soup and a slice of bread. During twenty days of detention he had access to the showers only once.

On 23 October 2009 the applicant was transferred from that remand facility to prison no. 13 ( Chișinău ). He was placed for three days in cell no. 38 with a total surface of 12 square metres. The applicant was detained with seven to twelve other inmates. In particular, the applicant describes his conditions of detention as follows: the cell was equipped with twelve wooden beds, it was not heated, the quality of food was very poor, there was a lack of ventilation, worsened by the inmates ’ smoking directly in the cell, and poor lighting.

On 27 October 2009 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 78 measuring 30 square metres. He was detained there with twelve other detainees. The cell was equipped with twelve wooden beds.

On 5 December 2010 the applicant was transferred from prison no. 13 ( Chișinău ) to prison no. 11 ( Bălți ), where he was detained until the date of his acquittal by the Bălți Court of Appeal on 22 February 2012. On the date of his arrival he was not fed. He was placed in cell no. 6 with a total surface of 21 square metres. The applicant was detained with fourteen to nineteen other inmates. The cell was equipped with only fourteen beds and the detainees had to sleep in turns. In particular, the applicant described his conditions of detention as follows: toilet insufficiently separated from the cell, lack of a washstand, lack of water and ventilation, lack of adequate lighting, damp and cold cell.

On 15 January 2011 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 21 with a total surface of 16 square metres. The applicant was detained along with fifteen to seventeen other inmates and they had to sleep in turns as the cell was equipped with only twelve beds. The conditions of detention as described by the applicant were as follows: lack of bed linen, clothing and hygiene products, inadequate quality of food, lack of medical assistance. The applicant also contends that he was bitten by parasitic insects present in the cell.

The applicant complained to the domestic courts and the investigating authority about the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. On 20 January 2011 the Bălți Prosecutor ’ s office acknowledged the existence of the inhuman conditions of detention in prison no. 11 ( Bălți ).

C. Relevant domestic law

According to Article 439 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal on points of law against judgments for which the law does not provide for the remedy of appeal may be filed within 15 days from the date the judgment was pronounced.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was detained in inhuman conditions while in the remand centre of the Department for Combating Organised Crimes, in prison no. 13 ( Chișinău ) and prison no. 11 ( Bălți ).

2. He also complains under Article 13 that he did not have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his detention.

4 . The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention and about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention.

5. He also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the infringement of the guarantees provided by this Article during the examination of his habeas corpus request.

6. The applicant finally complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the interference with the principle of legal certainty after the Supreme Court of Justice admitted the appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor General ’ s Office outside the fifteen day time-limit and ordered a rehearing of the case after the applicant ’ s final acquittal, failing to deal in its judgment with his submission alleging that the appeal was time-barred.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant detained in inhuman conditions of detention while in the remand centre of the Department for Combating Organised Crimes, in prison no.13 ( Chișinău ) and prison no.11 ( Bălți )?

2 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?

3 . Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the procedure for the applicant ’ s arrest and the extension of his detention for a period exceeding the statutory time-limit, in accordance with domestic law?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to detain the applicant and to prolong his detention “relevant and sufficient” for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

5. Do the facts of the case reveal a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

6. Do the facts of the case reveal a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Prosecutor General ’ s Office ’ s appeal on points of law lodged within the legal time-limit and did the Supreme Court of Justice give relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring that appeal admissible ( Melnic v. Moldova , no. 6923/03, §§ 39 44, 14 November 2006, Ceachir v. Moldova , no. 11712/04, §§ 41-48, 15 January 2008)?