THIRD SECTION

Application no. 42921/10 Vladimir MOSCALCIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Moscalciuc , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Chişinău . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Nicula and Mr P. Munteanu , lawyers practising in Chișinău .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The applicant ’ s detention pending trial

3. On 6 November 2003 the applicant was convicted for theft and sentenced to fifteen years ’ imprisonment. The higher courts reduced that sentence to ten years of imprisonment. On 10 February 2010 the applicant ’ s request for early release from prison due to the application of an amnesty law to a part of his sentence was accepted by the Centru District Court. He was released on the spot.

4. Immediately after exiting the court room the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having created an organised criminal group consisting of detainees in various prisons of the Republic of Moldova , with the purpose of obtaining money from other detainees and of creating a power system parallel to the prison administration.

5. On 12 February 2010 the Rîșcani District Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial for 30 days, accepting the prosecutor ’ s arguments that the applicant could abscond and attempt to influence witnesses and victims, as well as to protect public order. That decision was confirmed by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 18 February 2010.

6. The applicant ’ s detention was extended by the Rîșcani District Court on 10 March, 9 April, 10 May, 10 June and 6 July 2010, each time by thirty days. These decisions were confirmed by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 30 March, 20 April, 21 May and 18 June 2010. On 6 August 2010 the Chișinău Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention pending trial by another ninety days. The same court ordered further ninety-day extensions on 1 November 2010, as well as on 3 February, 21 April, 6 July and 26 October 2011. Each of these decisions was upheld by a higher court.

7. In the decision dated 26 October 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal noted, inter alia , that since 1 November 2010 the case had been sent to the trial court for trial, all the 48 witnesses for the prosecution had been heard and other materials examined. The case against the applicant had been joined with nine other cases against his co-accused. The court noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crime of which he was accused; the law provided for a prison term in case of conviction; the case was a special one, involving a notorious name in the criminal world; the applicant ’ s release would pose a risk to public order and to the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings; several witnesses had complained about attempts to intimidate them and had to be given special protection; the majority of those involved in the proceedings as accused, victims or witnesses were convicted persons serving long sentences. Given all of the above and the large amount of evidence to be examined, the court considered necessary to extend the applicant ’ s detention by ninety days.

8. The case is pending before the first-instance court.

2. Conditions of detention

9. The applicant was detained for three weeks in the detention remand centre of the Operational Services Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (in Chișinău ). He was transferred from that centre to prison no. 13 because the centre had to be closed down due to the substandard conditions of detention. In particular, the applicant described his conditions of detention as follows: the cell was situated underground and had no access to natural light or fresh air, it was not heated, all of which affected his state of health. According to a medical certificate dated 15 February 2010, the applicant was ill with chronic active hepatitis C and had followed treatment in 2008 and 2009. Further treatment had been scheduled for March 2010 and a recommendation was made for a special diet and bio-chemical monitoring. According to a certificate of the national social services authority of 18 August 2006, the applicant was recognised as having third-degree invalidity. In his appeal of 13 March 2010 against a decision extending his detention the applicant noted his illness as one of the reasons for asking to replace his detention with a milder preventive measure.

B . Relevant international material

10. The relevant part of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Moldova between 14 and 24 September 2007 (CPT/ Inf (2008) 39) reads as follows (unofficial translation):

“35. ... conditions of detention in the IDPs visited remained, in general, very poor. The cells had either no windows (e.g. at the IDP of the Operational Services Department in Chişinău ... ) or their windows were covered by shutters which substantially limited access to natural light. As for artificial lighting, it was, as a rule, dim. ... Further, the cells were often stuffy, despite the presence of a ventilation system (which was rarely turned on because of the noise it made). Detainees slept on wooden platforms, which took up most of the floor space; no steps had been taken in respect of providing mattresses and blankets (the presence of an occasional blanket was attributable to detainees ’ families). The only exception was the IDP in Călăraşi , where most of the cells were fitted with bunk beds with mattresses.”

COMPLAINTS

11. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was detained in inhuman conditions of detention.

12. He also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts ’ decisions ordering and then extending his pre-trial detention were insufficiently reasoned.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in particular concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give “relevant and sufficient reasons” to extend the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention?