Communicated on 13 June 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 8045/13
Ionel MANȚOG
against Romania
lodged on 9 January 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ionel Manțog, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1956 and is currently held in Târgu-Jiu Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Chiriţă, a lawyer practising in Cluj Napoca.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. From 1 April 1996 to 1 February 2005, the applicant was director of the Human Resources and Legal Department of the National Coal Company Oltenia (“N.C.C.O.”; Compania Naţională a Lignitului Oltenia which later became Societatea Naţională a Lignitului Oltenia).
On 1 February 2005 the applicant was appointed Secretary of State in the Ministry of Economy and Trade. He remained in his post until 30 June 2006 when he was released of his duties following a decision adopted by the Prime Minister.
A. Criminal prosecution against the applicant
4. On an unspecified date, the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice started a criminal investigation against the applicant and Mr. I.V. under suspicion of several acts of abuse of office and forgery. The applicant was first informed of the proceedings against him sometime in 2004.
5. On 5 September 2006 the prosecutor indicted the applicant on multiple counts, namely:
(1) obtaining gain for himself by means of financial operations by using inside information on his company’s future dealings (lands that would be expropriated for oil exploitation, and therefore offering the owners compensation for their property); these acts had allegedly occurred from June to October 2002 (Article 12 of Anti-Corruption Act, Law no. 78/2000 on the prevention, discovery and punishment of acts of corruption; “the Anti‑corruption Act”);
(2) writing false documents (two alleged loan contracts of 22 April 2004 and 21 April 2006 respectively) in order to cover up for his above dealings and to pre‑constitute evidence (Article 290 of the Criminal Code);
(3) abusing his office by obtaining undue funds from N.C.C.O. in order to build a house for himself and accepting compensation exceeding what he had actually lost to the Company (Article 17 of the Anti-corruption Act and Articles 248 and 2481 of the Criminal Code); the damage caused to the Company by these actions was estimated at 4,145,265,443 Romanian Lei (ROL);
(4) making false statements before the public notary on 20 January 2004 when signing the sale contracts concerning the property in question (Article 17 of the Anti-corruption Act together with Article 292 of the Criminal Code); and
(5) making false statements concerning his fortune (Article 17 of the Anti‑corruption Act together with Article 292 of the Criminal Code and Article 36 of Law no. 115/1996 on the control of the officials’ wealth).
6. The case was heard by the Sibiu County Court which held a first hearing on 3 October 2006 and rendered its judgment on 4 April 2011. During the proceedings, the court met approximately once every month with the exception of two longer breaks, from 21 June 2007 to 30 January 2008 and from 26 March 2010 to 26 January 2011; during these two periods the Constitutional Court examined objections raised by the defendants concerning the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Anti‑corruption Act.
7. The County Court heard evidence from the applicant and I.V., fifty‑five witnesses for the prosecution and thirteen witnesses for the defence. Additional evidence was adduced by both parties.
8. The applicant was found guilty of abuse of office under counts (1) and (3) of the indictment act; the County Court considered that the acts committed did not meet the requirements of the offence prohibited by Article 12 of the Anti‑corruption Act and therefore could only be classified as abuse of office under the general provisions of the Criminal Code, which represented the general law in the matter; as the prosecution became time‑barred, the court ended the trial on this aspect. The County Court acquitted the applicant on count (2). Lastly, it convicted him on count (4) and gave a suspended prison sentence of one year and eight months.
9. All parties appealed. The Alba Iulia Court of Appeal met six times and rendered it decision on 30 November 2011. It partially upheld the judgment rendered by the lower court, but convicted the applicant under count (2). The final sentence remained unchanged.
10. The parties appealed on points of law and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, after meeting five times, rendered the final decision on 9 July 2012. The High Court examined the legal classification and considered that the acts for which he was indicted under counts (1) and (3) constituted the aggravated offence of abuse of office punished by the Criminal Code and for which the prosecution was not time-barred. It therefore convicted the applicant on that count. The applicant was sentenced to five years in prison.
B. Conditions of detention
11. The applicant is currently serving his sentence in Târgu Jiu Prison. He describes the conditions of detention as follows: he is held in cell no. 13, which measures 50 sq. m and is occupied by 30 inmates. There is no room for any additional furniture, and hardly any room to stand as the beds occupy most of the space. The applicant has to spend about 20 hours each day in that cell, although he was assigned to a semi-open regime (regim semi‑deschis). A separate room with two toilets and a shower is attached to the cell. Cold water is available continuously, but hot water is available only twice per week for two hours. This is insufficient for all inmates to take showers. The cell is poorly lit and ventilated.
12. According to the information provided by the applicant from the Prison Administration’s website, on 1 January 2013 Târgu Jiu Prison held 646 inmates; its occupation rate was thus 122 %.
13. The conditions of detention triggered a deterioration of the applicant’s health. On 6 August 2013, after being forced by the prison administration to remain in the sun for a long period of time, he lost consciousness and was transported to a hospital.
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in Târgu-Jiu Prison.
15. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the domestic proceedings against him was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Târgu-Jiu Prison in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide information on the material conditions of the applicant’s detention.
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy