Communicated on 8 June 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 65324/09
Alexandru IALAMOV
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 28 November 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Alexandru Ialamov, was a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lived in Chișinău. He died on 2 September 2014 and his father and next of kin, Mr Nicolai Ialamov, expressed the wish to pursue his late son’s application. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Osoianu, a lawyer practising in Ialoveni.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 April 2009 the applicant was arrested and charged with murder. He and another suspect were accused of killing a taxi driver on the night of 12‑13 February 2009. On 31 July 2009 he was also charged with several counts of theft, allegedly committed between 30 May and 15 October 2008.
On 6 April 2009 the prosecutor applied to the Centru District Court for a warrant for the applicant’s detention in custody. The same day the Centru District Court issued a warrant for thirty days’ detention.
The applicant’s detention was extended repeatedly every thirty days until 23 October 2009, when the case was committed for trial; after that date his detention was extended every ninety days.
According to the applicant, he appealed against each extension of detention. In his appeals from 3 July and 28 August 2009 he complained, inter alia, about being denied access to the evidence of the case which had been submitted to the investigating judge, including witness statements incriminating him. In his appeals of 1 October 2009 and before the Centru District Court on 23 November 2009 the applicant complained that the extension of his detention had been unlawful because the application for extension had been made outside the time-limit prescribed by Article 186 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was thus null under Article 230 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the applicant, his appeals were rejected without reference to the representations he had made.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains in essence under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention after 30 September 2009 was unlawful because it was based on an invalid extension application.
The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was denied access to the evidence in the case which was presented to the judge for a decision on the extension of his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the Centru District Court extended the applicant’s detention after 30 September 2009 by upholding an application for extension submitted by the prosecutor outside the time-limit prescribed by domestic law?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the defence have sufficient access to the evidence of the criminal file needed to challenge the applicants’ detention pending trial (see Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 61-64, 23 October 2007)?
The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the domestic case file.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy