CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 19580/10 Emese SZŐCS against Romania lodged on 7 April 2010   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Emese Szőcs, is a Romanian and Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Miercurea Ciuc. Her application was lodged on 7 April 2010. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant and six co ‑ accused were parties to a set of criminal proceedings brought by the Târgu ‑ Mureş Organised Crime and Anti ‑ Terrorist Unit. By an interlocutory judgment of 17 September 2009 the Harghita County Court granted the Târgu ‑ Mureş Organised Crime and Anti ‑ Terrorist Unit’s request seeking to detain the applicant and her co ‑ accused pending trial on charges of, inter   alia , drug trafficking, trafficking of minors, procurement, and personal drug use, and ordered their pre ‑ trial detention for twenty ‑ nine days. The court found that on 4 September 2009 the Târgu ‑ Mureş Organised Crime and Anti ‑ Terrorist Unit had initiated a criminal investigation in rem on the suspicion that at a certain address in the town of Odorheiu Secuiesc an apartment was being used by unidentified individuals as a brothel and for drug trafficking purposes. The court further found that on 4 September 2009 it had approved the Târgu ‑ Mureş Organised Crime and Anti ‑ Terrorist Unit’s request for a search warrant for the above ‑ mentioned apartment. The said apartment had been lawfully searched on 6 September 2009 and as a result the applicant and her co ‑ accused had been identified as the alleged offenders. Relying on the documentary and testimonial evidence in the file, as well as the minutes of the report of the search of the apartment, the County Court found that there was strong evidence to support the suspicion that all the accused had committed the above ‑ mentioned offences. Moreover, it held that the said offences were punishable by more than four years’ imprisonment and that the release of the accused would be a danger to public order (Article 148 (f) of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure) given the seriousness of the offences. Furthermore, according to the evidence in the file there was a suspicion that the accused might attempt to influence the witnesses and obstruct justice (Article 148 (b) of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure). The applicant was detained pending trial both in the Miercurea Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea Ciuc Police Department. The applicant’s appeal against the interlocutory judgment of 17   September 2009 was dismissed as ill ‑ founded by the Târgu ‑ Mureş Court of Appeal on 23 September 2009. Between 16 October 2009 and 15 November 2010 the Târgu ‑ Mureş Court of Appeal repeatedly extended the pre ‑ trial detention of the applicant and her co ‑ accused by final interlocutory judgments, mainly on the ground that the initial reasons justifying their detention remained valid. By a final interlocutory judgment of 16 November 2010 the Harghita County Court allowed the applicant’s action seeking the discontinuance of her pre ‑ trial detention and ordered her release under an undertaking not to leave town. In her application of 7 April 2010 the applicant informed the Court, without referring to a particular establishment, that the conditions of her detention pending trial were inhuman and degrading. In particular, she did not have access to adequate medical care and she did not have access to the prison dentist. Moreover, the conditions lacked basic hygiene, the bathroom facilities were dirty and the smell was unbearable. Furthermore, she had not been provided with any toilet paper, had to share the bathroom facilities with men, and the food was poor. Lastly, the cell and the bathroom were infested with rats. The criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the domestic courts. B.     Relevant domestic law Section 148 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) provides that a person may be arrested where there is reasonable suspicion that he or she has committed a crime, and provided that one of the situations listed is applicable. These situations are those in which an accused has committed a serious offence punishable by more than four years’ imprisonment; where he or she is a danger to public order; and where there is a suspicion that he or she might obstruct justice by influencing witnesses. The relevant domestic practice concerning the notion of “danger to public order” provided for by the provisions of Article 148 of the CCP is set forth in the case of Calmanovicil v. Romania (no. 42250/02, §§ 40 ‑ 42, 1   July 2008). Following the amendment of the CCP by Law no. 281/2002, published in the Official Gazette on 1 July 2003, Article 148 of the CCP required the existence of evidence that the release of an accused would pose a real threat to public order. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying in substance on Article   3 of the Convention, the applicant claims that the conditions of her pre ‑ trial detention in Miercurea Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea Ciuc Police Department amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, the authorities failed to provide her with adequate medical care and she did not have access to a dentist. Moreover, the conditions lacked basic hygiene, the bathroom facilities were dirty and the smell was unbearable. Furthermore, she was not provided with any toilet paper, had to share the bathroom facilities with men, and the food was poor. Lastly, the cell and the bathroom were infested with rats. 2.     Relying in substance on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the repeated use of the same general evidence by the domestic courts as a basis for placing and keeping her in pre ‑ trial detention for an excessively long time. 3.     Relying in substance on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that during the search of her home of 6 September 2009 some of her personal belongings were damaged or lost. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the material conditions of her pre-trial detention in Miercurea Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea Ciuc Police Department?   2.     The Government are invited to submit information concerning the material conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in Miercurea Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea Ciuc Police Department, specifically with regard to the applicant’s allegations of lack of hygiene, dirty bathroom facilities, foul smells, a lack of toilet paper, poor food, that she was obliged to share the bathroom facilities with men, and that the cell and bathroom were infested with rats.   3.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention in line with the requirements of Article 5 § 3? In particular, were the reasons adduced for her continued detention by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” and were the proceedings conducted with “special diligence”?   4.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in connection with her complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the length of her pre-trial detention and lack of sufficient reasons?