Communicated on 24 January 2018
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 63588/17 and 74995/17
Veaceslav PLATON against the Republic of Moldova
and Veaceslav PLATON against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 16 August 2017 and 4 October 2017 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern complaints by the same applicant in respect of various aspects of his arrest and detention. The first application raises an issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention – restrictions on the number, duration and confidentiality of contacts with his lawyers concerning his detention pending trial.
The second application concerns the applicant’s conditions of detention, including the alleged insufficiency of medical assistance in prison (Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention), as well as the denial of visiting rights by the applicant’s relatives (Article 8 of the Convention).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in application no. 63588/17? In particular, was the applicant provided with adequate time and facilities in preparing arguments against his detention, notably by authorising his representation by lawyers of his own choice, ensuring a sufficient number of meetings with his lawyers as required by the complexity of the criminal case against him and ensuring the confidentiality of such meetings (see, for instance, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 45-61, 13 March 2007)?
2. Has there been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in application no. 74995/17? In particular, was the applicant held in inhuman conditions of detention, was he provided with medical assistance required by his condition and did he have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, §§ 83-101 and 123-25, 15 September 2015, and Cristioglo v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 24163/11, §§ 20-24, 26 April 2016)?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in application no. 74995/17? In particular, was the applicant denied visits in prison by his relatives and if so, were such restrictions in compliance with the requirement of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, §§ 105-19, 19 June 2007)?
APPENDIX
Application no 63588/17
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was not given the possibility to meet in private with his lawyers in order to discuss arguments concerning his detention pending trial. Despite knowing the identity of his lawyers in other criminal cases and despite being aware of his address in Chișinău, the authorities chose not to contact him or his lawyers, but to assign an ex officio lawyer for the hearing at which it was decided to order his arrest.
When the applicant was arrested on 29 August 2016, he asked to be represented by his lawyer, which was refused and an ex officio one was assigned instead, without any compelling reasons for doing so.
On 1 September 2016, when the court examined the appeal lodged by the applicant’s two chosen lawyers, the latter tried to see the applicant in prison before the hearing, but that was refused. Subsequently both the applicant and his lawyers asked for a break in order to be able to have their first confidential meeting. However, this was likewise refused.
Overall, between 29 August 2016 and 20 April 2017 the applicant’s lawyers were systematically limited in accessing their client (either strict time-limits, despite legal provisions providing that access to a lawyer cannot be limited in time or frequency or refusal to allow lawyers to see their client in prison, for allegedly frivolous reasons).
Application no 74995/17
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of his detention in prison no. 13: no access to daylight and weak artificial light; damp and cold cell without working ventilation; presence of parasitic insects; insufficient separation of the hole replacing the toilet from the rest of the cell; passive smoking; insufficient quantity and quality of food and the refusal to allow him to receive food parcels from his wife.
He also complains about insufficient medical treatment for his kidney pain, notably the absence of a nephrologist and the refusal to be seen by such a specialist. Due to malnutrition his teeth started deteriorating and he asked to be seen by a dentist on 21 July 2017. A dentist saw him on 6 September 2017 and mentioned that the prison did not have photopolymer filling. In the absence of any treatment, his toothache continued. Another doctor recommendation to receive vitamins in injections was not observed, the applicant’s wife being denied the possibility to send them to him in prison.
He finally complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal by the prison administration of his right to meetings with his relatives.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy