Communicated on 12 July 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 72238/14
Iurii COTEȚ
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 29 October 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand for approximately four months allegedly in poor conditions of detention. The applicant was accused of having injured involuntarily a person as a result of a fight. He complains that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to remand him in custody, that the courts denied him access to the materials contained in the criminal file which he needed in order to challenge his detention, and that the courts examined his habeas corpus request after more than two weeks. The applicant finally complains that he was not entitled to compensation for violation of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts to remand the applicant in custody and to prolong his detention, reasonable and sufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 115-23, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the examination of his habeas corpus request of 1 September 2014 seventeen days later compatible with that provision (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 115-24, 4 October 2005)?
4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the defence have sufficient access to the materials of the criminal file and to other materials needed to challenge his detention pending trial (see Veretco v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 679/13, §§ 52‑60, 7 April 2015)?
5. Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Veretco v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 679/13, §§ 61-68, 7 April 2015)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy