CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97 May 2007 Modarca v. Moldova - 14437/05 Judgment 10.5.2007 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-4 Take proceedings Lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications due to indiscriminate use of a glass partition in a detention centre: violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of pre-trial detention and detainee's obligation to pay for their improvement: violation   Facts : In 2004-2005, the applicant, a Municipal Council official subject to a criminal investigation, was detained in the remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption. His lawyer asked for permission to hold confidential meetings with his client during his detention and was offered a room where they were separated by a glass partition, with no space for exchanging documents, across which they claimed they had to shout to hear each other. Despite requests to be given access to a room allowing confidential meetings and the applicant's hunger strike, no such room was ever provided. The District Court, which had granted this request, reversed its decision a month later, finding that the glass partition had not prevented confidential discussion and that it had been necessary to protect the applicant's health and safety and to prevent “any destructive action”. Upon his transfer to another remand centre, the applicant alleged having suffered inhuman and degrading detention conditions. The Government contested his allegations in this respect. Law : Article   3 – The applicant was detained for almost nine months in extremely overcrowded conditions (1.2 m 2 of free space per detainee) with little access to daylight, limited availability of running water, especially during the night and in the presence of heavy smells from the toilet, while being given insufficient quantity and quality of food or bed linen. In addition, the applicant had to spend 23 hours a day in those cramped conditions and the only hour allowed for daily walks appeared to have exposed him to the risk of infection with tuberculosis. He also had to invest in the repair and furnishing of the cell. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   5(4) - The applicant and his lawyer could reasonably have had grounds to believe that their conversations in the meeting room were not confidential. The lack of any aperture in the glass partition to allow the exchange of documents had rendered the lawyers' task even more difficult. There was nothing in the file to suggest that the applicant had posed a security risk: he had no criminal record and had been prosecuted for non-violent offences. The glass partition was a general measure affecting indiscriminately everyone in the remand centre, regardless of their personal circumstances. The impossibility for the applicant to discuss with his lawyers issues directly relevant to his defence and to his appeal against detention, without being separated by a glass partition, had affected his right to defence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR 7,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. For more details, see Press Release no. 294. See also Oferta Plus SRL v . Moldova , no. 14385/04, in Information Note no. 92.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes