Communicated on 19 May 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 74514/13 Petru TOMA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 14 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Petru Toma, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Mile știi Noi . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Malanciuc , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3 . The applicant was suspected of seeking to contract someone to kill C. On 14 June 2013 two persons, working in cooperation with the police, met with the applicant, showed him pictures confirming C. ’ s alleged murder, and accepted money from the applicant for having allegedly murdered C. The police immediately intervened and arrested the applicant. He was charged with attempted murder.

4 . On 17 June 2013 the prosecutor applied to the Centru District Court for a warrant of the applicant ’ s detention in custody. The reasons relied upon by the prosecutor was that the applicant had been “caught in the act” , he could abscond from prosecution, interfere with the criminal investigation and re-offend. According to the applicant, the prosecutor did not provide any materials in support of his request.

5 . The same day the Centru District Court issued an arrest warrant for thirty days relying on the reasons provided by the prosecutor. The applicant was remanded in custody in prison no. 13 in Chișinău .

6 . The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the order of detention was unlawful under Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because, contrary to it, the court refused to provide his representative with any materials of the file other than the prosecutor ’ s request and did not examine such materials in general. He also argued that detention conditions in prison no. 13 were inappropriate. He cited reports of the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova following visits to prison no. 13 in 2012 and 2013, in which it had found the prison cells unsanitary and insalubrious, with toilets next to beds, no permanent running water, no facilities for personal hygiene, lice and bedbugs, and poor lighting.

7 . On 19 June 2013 the Chi ș in ău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, relyin g on the same reasons as the lower court . The court did not reply to the contentions made by the applicant in his appeal about being denied access to relevant materials in the file.

8 . On 26 June 2013 the case was referred to the Centru District Court for trial.

9 . On 12 July 2013 the Centru District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention by ninety days on the ground that the applicant could abscond. The applicant did not appeal this decision.

10 . On 10 October 2013 the Centru District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention by ninety days for the same reasons as it had done before. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that detention conditions in prison no. 13 were inadequate. On 23 October 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

11 . Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended on 27 October 2012, oblige the prosecutor to submit materials of the file confirming the reasons on which his request for detention or for extension of detention relies. Both the request and the materials attached to it shall be presented to the representative of the accused.

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the material conditions of detention in prison no. 13 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

13 . He also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings challenging the lawfulness of his detention and, in particular, of the courts ’ refusal to present him and to examine any materials of the criminal file .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the conditions in p rison no. 13 in Chi șinău , where the applicant has been held, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the defence have sufficient access to the materials of the criminal file and to other materials needed to challenge his detention pending trial (see, Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova , no. 39835/05, §§ 61-64 and 67-70, 23 October 2007)?