Communicated on 18 March 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36188/09 Tiberiu Mircea TIBA against Romania lodged on 12 June 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Tiberiu Mircea Tiba , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Oradea .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 11 December 2008 the applicant, was called by a police officer and asked to come at the Oradea office of the National Anticorruption Department (N.A.D.) the next day at 8:00 a.m. in order to discuss a file currently under investigation. The applicant, who is a lawyer, thought that he was called to discuss the case of one of his clients.

4. On 12 December 2008 at 8:00 a.m. when the applicant arrived as requested, he was shown a warrant to appear before the Timișoara office of the N.A.D. as he was accused of traffic of influence in a criminal investigation conducted by that office. A police officer then drove the applicant to Salonta police station where he was taken over by two employees of N.A.D. Bucharest and continued his transport to Timișoara , a town located at around 180 km from Oradea.

5. At the office of the N.A.D. Timișoara the applicant was informed that he was accused in a criminal file and his statement was taken by a prosecutor. Subsequently, the same prosecutor opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant for traffic of influence and took a second statement from him. The applicant was not allowed to leave or to make phone calls. At 5:10 p.m. the prosecutor ordered the applicant ’ s placement in police custody for twenty-four hours. During the same evening the prosecutor forwarded a proposal for the applicant ’ s placement in pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days to the Timișoara Court of Appeal.

6. On 13 December 2008 at 9:00 a.m. the applicant and another co-defendant were brought before the Timișoara Court of Appeal. At the end of the hearing which lasted until 3:30 p.m., the court issued an interlocutory judgment confirming the applicant ’ s placement in pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days. At the beginning of the hearing the applicant and his representatives had requested the court to observe that his placement in police custody had expired. The applicant had argued that, in accordance with the law, the period spent during transportation to the N.A.D. office and the time spent there in questioning should have been deducted from the period of twenty-four hours of police custody and hence, he should have been set free before the beginning of the hearing. On this point the court informed the applicant that any complaints in connection with the legality of the police custody had to be addressed to the prosecutor who had taken the measure complained about.

7. The applicant ’ s appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the interlocutory judgment of 13 December 2008 was rejected as ill-founded by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 17 December 2008.

8. On 26 February 2010 the High Court of Cassation and Justice finally convicted the applicant for traffic of influence on account that he had promised to change the location of a trial to another court, in exchange of money.

B. Relevant domestic law

9. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the warrant to appear before the criminal investigation authority in force at the relevant time are quoted in Ghiur ău v. Romania (no. 55421/10, § 45, 23 February 2012) and with respect to the placement in police custody are described in Creang ă v. Romania [GC] (no. 29226/03, § 58, 23 February 2012).

COMPLAINT S

10. Relying on Article 5 § 1 c) of the Convention the applicant complains that he had been unlawfully detained for the period of nine hours he spent under the police officers ’ control during transport and at the Timișoara Office of the National Anticorruption Department for questioning prior to his placement in police custody on 12 December 2008 .

11. The applicant also complains in substance under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have available an effective remedy in order to put forward his complaint under Article 5 § 1 c).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the period he spent under the police officers ’ control during transport and at the National Anticorruption Department ’ s Office for questioning prior to his placement in police custody on 12 December 2008?

2. Did the applicant ha ve an effective remedy for his complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required under Article 1 3 of the Convention?