Communicated on 1 September 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 17605/15 Emanuela Elena PENDIUC against Romania lodged on 3 April 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Emanuela Elena Pendiuc , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Pitești . She is represented before the Court by Ms A.E. Ciurea , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

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

On 4 September 2014 the applicant was prescribed with the medication required to avoid a miscarriage and was recommended to take the medication twice a day.

On 29 September 2014 the applicant was summoned by the National Anticorruption Department (“the NAD”) to be heard as a witness in respect of the criminal proceedings opened against her father inter alia for abuse of office and bribe taking . Her father was the Mayor of Pitești and the member of the largest political party forming the present Romanian Government. The hearing had been scheduled for 31 October 2014.

On 31 October 2014 because she experienced some complications in respect of her pregnancy, the applicant went to the hospital for medical investigations which confirmed the complications and recommended her to continue the prescribed treatment and to rest. Upon her return from the hospital two police officers presented her with an order to appear and took her to the NAD ’ s office. During the hearing the applicant informed the two prosecutors investigating the case about her poor medical condition, her mandatory treatment and its adverse effects which included dizziness and fainting sensations.

On 6 November 2014 several police officers came to the applicant ’ s home and took her to the NAD ’ s office in order to be heard again in respect of the criminal proceedings opened against her father.

Once she arrived at the NAD ’ s office the prosecutor ’ s investigating the case, left her waiting for eight hours in the hallway. During that time she was forced to stand and she had no access to food or water. After eight hours her statement was taken in the presence of her chosen legal representatives.

On the same date at 6 p.m. the prosecutors investigating the case informed the applicant, in the presence of her chosen legal representatives, that criminal proceedings had been opened against her and that she had been charged with complicity to bribe taking and money laundering.

On the same date around 7 p.m. the NAD placed the applicant in police custody for twenty four hours and order that she be detained in the Bucharest Police Department ’ s Detention Centre (“the Centre”).

On 7 November 2014 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the NAD ’ s request to detain the applicant pending trial for thirty days and ordered the applicant ’ s release on condition not to leave the country. In examining the applicant ’ s personal situation, the court noted inter alia that she was a former national television presenter and a movie producer.

The applicant stated that during her detention in the Centre the detention centre ’ s doctor refused to provide her with the treatment required for her pregnancy. Also, the detention centre ’ s authorities did not provide her with any food or water until the next morning when she received some inappropriate food for her condition which she was unable to eat. Moreover, she was detained in a 5 square meters cell with three other individuals who were smokers although she had informed the authorities that she was a non ‑ smoker and that in her condition smoke was harmful. The cell was cold and she was forced to sleep in a bed that had only a mattress and no bed linen and a duvet. The cell was fitted with a sink and a Turkish toilet. The toilet was separated from the rest of the cell by a curtain and was covered with a plastic device in order to prevent rats from entering the cell. A shower was fitted above the toilet which was also used for flushing the toilet. No warm water had been available during her detention and the cold water from the sink had been unsanitary and could not have been used for drinking. Furthermore, she was allowed only thirty minutes of outdoor exercise at the same time with the other three individuals detained with her in a 6 or 7 square meters yard with 3 meters high walls and covered by a metal grill. The other three individuals in the yard were constantly smoking and the yard was filled with cigarette smoke because fresh air could not enter the yard as a result of the very tall side walls.

C OMPLAINT S

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as well as to intense physical and mental suffering because even though the domestic authorities were aware of her serious medical condition, she was forced to wait for eight hours without water, food or a place to sit down at the National Anticorruption Department ’ s office pending her questioning. Moreover, she was detained in an overcrowded, squalid and cold cell with smokers, without sufficient clean air, physical exercise, food or water, with no access to warm water and without being provided with bed linen and a duvet. Furthermore the Bucharest Police Department ’ s Detention Centre ’ s doctor refused to provide her with the treatment needed to avoid a miscarriage.

Q UESTION S T O THE PARTIES

1. Considering her medical condition, did the applicant ’ s inability to have access to food , water and a place to sit for the period s h e spent at the National Anticorruption Department ’ s O ffice pending questioning prior to her placement in police custody amount to inhuman and degr ading treatment in breach of her rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of:

a) the material conditions of detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non-smokers, in the Bucharest Police Department ’ s Detention Centre ;

b) the lack of adequate medical treatment during her detention for her medical condition ?