THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29749/07
by Viorel BADEA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Viorel Badea, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 20 October 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having stolen property.
4. He was allegedly subjected to psychological pressure in order to confess to the crime with which he had been charged, following which he made self-incriminating statements. He subsequently confirmed his statements and asked the courts to reduce his sentence in view of his family’s poor financial situation. He had allegedly had to steal in order to feed his family. He also claimed that he had never seen the State-appointed lawyer handling his case, who had signed all the documents relating to the matter after the fact in order to lend an appearance of legitimacy to the investigation.
5. On 21 November 2005 the applicant was convicted by the Ciocana District Court. That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 19 January 2006. The applicant did not inform the Court of any subsequent judgments concerning his case.
6. After his arrest, the applicant was detained in Ciocana police station for three days in a cell measuring just over 1 sq. m together with four or five other detainees. It was impossible to sleep or sit there – one could only stand. There was no window or other means of ventilation.
7. The applicant was subsequently transferred to the premises of the General Police Directorate (“the GPD”). However, he was brought back to Ciocana police station several times for further questioning and each time he was detained in the same 1 sq. m cell as previously. In the GPD’s premises he was placed in cell no. 11, which measures 2.5 x 3 m and in which twelve detainees were held. The cell was unventilated, dirty and damp. No daily walk was allowed. A window of 50 cm x 50 cm was covered with thick metal netting preventing almost all sunshine and air from reaching the cell. The cell had a toilet, next to the dining table. Water was available from a tap installed above the toilet. Detainees had to take turns to sleep. The cell was infested with parasitic insects. No bed linen was available. No doctor visited the cell. The prosecutor responsible for checking conditions of detention fully supported the police and did not take action in response to any complaints.
8. Three weeks later the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chişinău and placed in cell no. 126. The cell was in the basement, had no windows and was not heated; it was very cold and damp. There were more detainees than sleeping places in the cell.
9. On 15 March 2006 he was transferred to prison no. 15 in Cricova.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention due to the inhuman conditions of his detention and the lack of remedies in respect of that complaint.
11. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been deprived of a proper defence and that the courts had not ordered an expert report to determine the value of the stolen items.
12. He further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the courts had refused to reduce his sentence.
13. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that he had not been given legal texts or other information needed for his defence.
14. He further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had not been given a Russian translation of the judgments given in his case.
15. The applicant complained under Article 17 of the Convention of corruption in the law-enforcement and judicial authorities in Moldova.
16. He lastly cited Article 53 of the Convention, without giving further details.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
17. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in inhuman conditions at Ciocana police station, the General Police Directorate’s premises and prison no. 13.
Article 3 reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
18. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies in respect of his complaint concerning the inhuman conditions of his detention. Article 13 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
19. The Court notes that in his application and further correspondence the applicant failed to inform it of his transfer, on 15 March 2006, to prison no. 15 in Cricova (see paragraph 9 above). He did not complain about the conditions of his detention in that prison, nor did he give a description of those conditions. The Court will therefore deal only with the complaint concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention prior to 15 March 2006.
20. The Court considers that, as the applicant was no longer detained after 15 March 2006 in the conditions which he had described in his application, the running of the six-month time-limit for lodging an application in respect of those conditions started from that date. However, he lodged his application on 17 June 2007, more than six months later.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other complaints
21. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him (see paragraphs 11-16 above). However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols.
22. It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy