CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5D0298BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 28825/09 Lucian Tiberiu POPA against Romania lodged on 6 May 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Lucian Tiberiu Popa, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Brad. He is represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Burugă, a lawyer practising in Timişoara. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 20 October 2006 the Timiş Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for drug trafficking and sent his case to trial. The Public Prosecutor’s Office held on the basis of the undercover agents’ testimonies and a laboratory expert report attesting that the substance sold was drugs that on 10   March   2005 the undercover agent V. met the applicant. In the conversation that ensued the applicant offered to sell the undercover agent V. an ecstasy pill. The transaction happened the following day in the presence of the undercover agents V. and C. On 16 March 2005 a second sale for two additional ecstasy pills occurred in the presence of the same undercover officers. On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant was arrested on remand on unspecified charges. He was released after twenty four hours. By a judgment of 19 October 2007 the Timiş County Court convicted the applicant for drug trafficking and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment on the basis of the undercover agents’ testimonies and a laboratory expert report. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He argued that the undercover agents who entrapped him had not been authorised to engage in a drug purchasing transaction with him as required by the applicable rules of criminal procedure. In addition, it had not been proven that he received money for the drugs or that he sold the drugs to the investigators as the meeting was not photographed or recorded on film, nor did the authorities organise an operation to catch him in the act. Moreover, according to the information provided to him by his school he had been attending classes at the times when the alleged meetings with the undercover agents happened. Furthermore, the first-instance court failed to provide reasons for dismissing the evidence requested by the defence, in particular a supplement to the laboratory expert report, the documents attesting that the undercover agents had been authorised to engage in drug purchasing transactions and a request addressed to the applicant’s school to confirm that he was attending school at the time of the transactions. By a judgment of 4 September 2008 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. It failed to provide any reasons for dismissing the appeal points raised by the defence. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment and reiterated the arguments for his appeal. In addition he argued that the Court of Appeal failed to provide any arguments for dismissing the points of appeal raised by the defence. By a final judgment of 7 November 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held that the applicant’s guilt had been correctly established by the lower courts. No further reasons were provided by it in respect of the appeal points raised by the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest on remand for twenty four hours on an unspecified date in 2006 had been unlawful. 2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings in so far as the domestic courts failed to allow his requests for evidence and to provide reasons for convicting him and dismissing his appeals. In addition he argued that the use of undercover agents to entrap him had not been lawfully authorised and the domestic courts without providing reasons failed to censor the activities carried out and the evidence collected by the said agents.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?