CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2013

.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 } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6AA809D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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. 32800/12 Aurel RĂDULESCU against Romania lodged on 25 April 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Aurel Rădulescu, is an American national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the criminal proceedings In August 2009 a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant and three other persons for committing a fraud in connection with the selling of a plot of land. The contract was signed before a public notary on 3   July   2007 between a person pretending to be the owner of the land, F.I., and a buyer found by the applicant. The seller identified himself before the public notary under a false identity. According to the evidence, the applicant was actively involved in the signing of the contract. He represented the seller before the authorities in obtaining the documents necessary for proving his ownership title over the land and was present when the contract was signed. 2.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant was arrested on 23 September 2009. The legality of his   detention and the subsistence of the reasons for maintaining were periodically reviewed by the domestic courts. The applicant was represented before the first-instance court by a lawyer of his own choice, M.A. On 19 August 2010 the Bucharest County Court found the applicant guilty of complicity to three offences (false regarding the identity of a person, use of false and fraud) and convicted him to ten   years’   imprisonment. The first-instance court held that the applicant obtained a forged identity card for F.I, used a forged power of attorney in order to obtain an ownership title for F.I and was involved in the fraudulent transaction. The prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County   Court, the applicant and F.I. appealed. The applicant claimed that that the lawyer who assisted him before the first-instance court had represented the buyer of the land in other proceedings. He also claimed his innocence. By a decision of 10 December 2010, the Bucharest Court   of   Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office and noting that the prejudice was recovered, sentenced the applicant to five   years’   imprisonment. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal holding that the proceedings in which the parties had been represented by the same lawyer were not connected. It also found that the applicant’s guilt was proved by ample documentary and testimonial evidence. The prosecutor’s office lodged an appeal on points of law claiming that the Bucharest Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the law by retaining mitigating circumstances in the calculation of the punishments. On 11 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office and sentenced the applicant to ten   years’   imprisonment. 3.     The applicant’s conditions of detention The applicant was initially detained in the premises of the Bucharest Police Station. On unspecified dates he was transferred to Rahova Prison. Since 8 August 2012 he is serving his sentence in Jilava Prison. He alleges that despite the fact that he is a non-smoker, he was detained with inmates who smoked inside the cell in all three prisons. He claims that his health worsened because of the conditions in which he was kept and that he was diagnosed with TBC. According to the applicant, the cell in which he is detained in Jilava Prison measures 16 square meters and is occupied by ten   detainees. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant legal provisions and excerpts from the relevant international and domestic reports concerning the situation in Romanian prisons are given in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§   125-129, 4   July   2012). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of his detention in Bucharest Police Station, Rahova and Jilava Prisons. He alleges that despite the fact that he was diagnosed with TBC he had always to share his cell with smokers. 2.     Under the same article the applicant claims that a traffic accident involving the police vehicle in which he was transported caused him severe injuries on 30   September 2009. He claims that his injuries were more severe because his hands were handcuffed behind his back, while the other detainees in the vehicle were handcuffed with the hands in front. 3.     Relying on Article 5 of the Convention he complains about the length of his pre ‑ trail detention and the lack of sufficient reasons for his detention. 4.     Under Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention the applicant complains about his legal assistance by a lawyer who represented a party having contradictory interests in the proceedings. QUESTION Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Bucharest Police Station, Rahova and Jilava Prisons breach the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention, taking into account his allegations of overcrowding and of sharing his cell with smokers? The Government are invited to provide additional information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular concerning the size of the respective cells and the distribution of the smokers and non-smokers in the cells.