Communicated on 20 March 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21517/13 Marioara Elisabeta ANDRONIC against Romania lodged on 21 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Marioara Elisabeta Andronic , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Timișoara . She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Anastasescu , a lawyer practising in Timișoara .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The criminal trial against the applicant

3. By a decision of 18 August 2003 a prosecutor from the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice had authorised the Romanian Secret Information Service to record for a period of six months the phone conversations between the applicant and other four persons suspected of having committed several crimes.

4. On 24 September 2004 the applicant was charged with fraud and forging of official documents. On 26 January 2005 she was indicted for traffic of influence, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and forging of official documents. The prosecutor based the decision on transcripts of phone conversations between the applicant and the other four co-defendants, witness statements, documents and expert reports.

5. The criminal trial against the applicant started before the TimiÈ™ County Court. The applicant contested the lawfulness of the recordings of her telephone conversations. She alleged that they had been ordered by a prosecutor who lacked the independence guarantees as provided by the Constitution and the Convention. In addition, the applicant pointed out that the phone tapping continued based on the same decision even after 1 January 2004, the date when a new law requiring prior authorisation from a judge entered into force.

6. The Timiș County Court did not respond to the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the lawfulness of the phone recordings and, on 31 January 2008 held, based on the expert reports and the documents submitted to the file, that the applicant was not guilty of the charges against her and decided to acquit her.

7. The prosecutor ’ s appeal against this decision was allowed by the Timisoara Court of Appeal on 20 February 2009 which ordered more severe sentences for the other four co-defendants.

8. The prosecutor ’ s appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against this judgment was allowed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 18 December 2009 and the case was sent back for a re-trial of the appeal.

9. Before the TimiÈ™ Court of Appeal the applicant invoked again the unlawfulness of the recordings of her phone conversations alleging that they had been based on legal provisions which were unconstitutional. Therefore, the applicant requested the court of appeal to forward these complaints to be analysed by the Constitutional Court.

10. By an interlocutory judgment of 21 June 2010 the Timișoara Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s request as not being relevant to the case.

11. In her written observation submitted before the court of appeal the applicant again referred to the unlawfulness of the recordings of her phone conversations and requested that the prosecutor ’ s office produce the authorisation for interception and the full text of the recordings. She further alleged that the recordings should not be admitted as evidence.

12. On 11 April 2011 the Timișoara Court of Appeal convicted the applicant for traffic of influence, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and forgery of official documents and sentenced her to five years imprisonment and the restriction of certain rights. The court rejected the applicant ’ s request stating that the authorisation for interception and the full text of the recordings are classified documents and they are not necessary to the case. It further briefly held that the recordings had been performed in accordance with the law.

13. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law against this judgment reiterating her complaints in connection with the recordings of her phone conversations.

14. On 26 September 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, took note that the statute of limitations period was met for one of the crimes, and finally convicted the applicant to four years and six months imprisonment and the restriction of certain rights. The High Court did not answer the applicant ’ s arguments as to the alleged unlawfulness of the recordings.

2. The conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

15. On 2 October 2012 the applicant started serving her sentence in the female section of Arad Prison. She described the material conditions of detention as being totally inappropriate for human living. She alleged that the female section of the prison was functioning in a building which formerly served as stables. According to the applicant, she was held in rooms which were not heated, with outside walls that were too thin and were full of mould. She complains that she suffered from pneumonia twice during her detention. In addition, the applicant mentioned she was held in severe overcrowding, sharing the room with thirteen other prisoners.

16. On 26 February 2013 the applicant was conditionally released from prison.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

17. The legislation in force at the relevant time concerning telephone tapping and changes to the law brought into force on 1 January 2004 are described in Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2) ( no. 71525/01, § § 39 ‑ 46 , 26 April 2007 ).

COMPLAINTS

18. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of detention in which she was held for a period of four months and twenty-three days in Arad Prison .

19. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her which lasted eight years before three degrees of jurisdiction.

20. T he applicant also alleges that the interception of her phone conversations was illegal and lacked proper authorisation , in violation of her Article 8 rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the conditions of her detention in Arad Prison?

The Government are invited to submit information concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in particular as regards overcrowding, hygiene conditions and provision of heating.

2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3 . Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the interception of her conversations by the prosecutor is concerned ( Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 71525/01, 26 April 2007 )?