Communicated on 11 July 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 24788/14 Vasile BOTOMEI against Romania lodged on 20 February 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasile Botomei , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bacă u .

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

The applicant is the president of the Bacau branch of the National Association of the Romanian Bars (“the association”; Uniunea Na ţ ional ă a Barourilor din România ). The association offers legal services in parallel to the offices of the traditional Bar Association.

Since 2005 several criminal complaints have been lodged against the applicant for unauthorised practice of law (“ practicarea ilegal ă a profesiei de avocat ”) either by clients, opposing parties to those he defended in various litigations or by the traditional Bar Association from Bacau. On each occasion the prosecutor decided not to prosecute, based, primarily, on a consistent practice of the courts on that matter.

In 2012 several new criminal complaints were lodged against the applicant, in particular:

– by two person s who had allegedly been made to believe by the applicant that by adhering to his association (passing an admission test and paying a fee which was registered as “donation”) they become lawyers in conformity with the Lawyers ’ Act (Law no. 51/1995);

– by the tradi tional bar association from Bacă u for alleged use of its name and symbols without permission;

– by a company which hired the applicant ’ s services as lawyer.

Acting upon these complaints, on 8 May 2013 the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Bac ă u Court of Appeal started the criminal action against the applicant. The applicant was arrested and a request was lodged with the Court of Appeal for his detention pending trial. On 9 May 2013 the Bac ă u Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention. He was released on 11 June 2013 under the obligation not to leave the country. The applicant was held in Ba că u police detention facilities.

The applicant requested that the quality of food be tested, that he could receive religious service and psychological counselling, and that he would be entitled to receive visits and to benefit from daily outdoor walks of at least 30 minutes, as during week-end and holidays the detainees were not taken out for walks. He also requested that a curtain be installed between the toilet and the rest of the cell to ensure some privacy when using the facilities.

On 11 May 2013 he addressed all his requests to the post-sentencing judge (Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences) who dismissed them on 21 May 2013. The judge noted that allowing detainees to walk outside on weekends could pose a security threat to the detention centre .

The applicant appealed, but on 22 August 2013 the Bac ă u District Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded and thus upheld the post-sentencing judge ’ s decision.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending with the domestic courts.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention pending-trail .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the police detention facilities in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide information on the ma terial conditions of detention.