SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66094/12
Piotr MOCIU
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2012,
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
The applicant, Mr Piotr Mociu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Cazaclia. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Balan, a lawyer practising in Chisinau.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
On 3 August 2012, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
On 6 August 2012, the prosecutor applied for a warrant of the applicant’s detention in custody. On the same day the Comrat District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for thirty days. The applicant was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention in the remand facility of the Comrat Police Station.
On 7 August 2012, the applicant appealed against the arrest warrant. On 10 August 2012, he complained that his state of health while in detention had deteriorated because of the gout he had been suffering from for several years, and thus asked to be examined by a doctor.
On 13 August 2012, a rheumatologist saw the applicant in his cell. The doctor did not make any conclusion which would support the applicant’s complaints and recommended an additional examination at a hospital. It appears that the doctor’s recommendation was not followed. After having the applicant examined by the prison medical staff, the prison administration concluded that the applicant was fit for detention.
On 28 August 2012, the Cahul Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention warrant. At the court hearing the applicant’s representative presented copies of the applicant’s medical records confirming the diagnosis “Acute decompensated gout” (Gută în stadiu decompensat în fază de acutizare). However, the court dismissed the applicant’s claims about his health condition as unsubstantiated, relying on the penitentiary medical staff’s opinion that the applicant could receive adequate medical assistance in detention.
On several occasions, the courts extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention upon the prosecutor’s request.
On 30 November 2012, the Comrat District Court ordered that the applicant be placed under house arrest. The applicant appealed.
By its final decision of 10 December 2012, the Comrat Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision, and ordered the applicant’s release from detention.
During the proceedings the applicant was kept in two detention facilities, namely at the Comrat Police Station and the Cahul Prison. The parties did not specify the exact periods of the applicant’s detention in the aforementioned facilities.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of detention in the detention facility of the Comrat Police Station and about the lack of appropriate medical care. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that it took the Comrat Court of Appeal more than three weeks to examine his appeal against the Comrat District Court’s decision of 6 August 2012.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Comrat Police Station amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. However, the applicant failed to specify the period of his detention in that facility. Nor did he give any details about the conditions which he considered to be inadequate (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 122, 10 January 2012). In such circumstances, the Court considers this complaint to be unsubstantiated and concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant further complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with appropriate medical treatment for his condition. However, the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate this part of the complaint under Article 3 too. Namely, the applicant did not adduce any evidence that he was in need of any urgent medical care. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this part of application is also manifestly ill-founded, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant complained that the Comrat Court of Appeal examined his appeal against the Comrat District Court’s decision of 6 August 2012 only on 30 August 2012. In his view, the lengthy delay after which the Court of Appeal examined his appeal amounted to a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 guarantees no right, as such, to appeal against decisions ordering or extending detention as the above provision refers to “proceedings” and not to appeals. The intervention of one organ satisfies Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, on condition that the procedure followed has a judicial character and gives to the individual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 100, ECHR 2000-IX, cited in Malai v. Moldova, no. 7101/06, § 29, 13 November 2008). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2017.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy