Communicated on 9 February 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 26990/15
Andreea Cornelia STĂNCULEANU
against Romania
lodged on 30 May 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Andreea Cornelia Stănculeanu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Bucharest. She is represented before the Court by Mr Gheorghe Dragomir, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings opened against the applicant and her pre-trial detention
In March 2014 a large-scale criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant and twenty-nine other persons for money laundering and fiscal fraud.
In the framework of the criminal investigation, on 4 December 2014 several police officers carried out a search at the applicant’s home. The search started at 6 a.m. and lasted about four hours.
Immediately after the search, at 12 noon, the applicant was taken by police officers to the Bucharest Police Station’s headquarters on the basis of an order to appear before the investigation body.
The applicant alleges that the fact that she was taken to the police station by police on an order to appear was not justified. She also alleges that such a measure is normally taken against persons who refuse to cooperate with the investigation bodies, while she was never summonsed to appear before them.
At about 00.22 a.m. the prosecutor started the applicant’s questioning. The applicant refused to give a statement on the grounds that she was very tired.
The applicant was kept at the police headquarters until 01.10 a.m., when she was informed of the decision taken by the prosecutor concerning the charges against her and the other suspects. She was charged with complicity in fiscal fraud. She was also informed that the prosecutor had decided to remand her in custody for twenty-four hours.
Her lawyer lodged immediately a complaint with the prosecutor claiming that her deprivation of liberty from 12 noon on 4 December 2014 and 1.10 a.m. on 5 December 2014 was unlawful. The prosecutor dismissed the complaint on the same day.
On 5 December 2014, by relying on testimonial, document and audio surveillance evidence, the prosecutor asked the Bucharest County Court to remand the applicant in custody for thirty days as her release posed a threat to public order.
By an interlocutory judgment delivered on 6 December 2014, the Bucharest County Court allowed the prosecution’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention until 3 January 2015.
The appeal lodged by the applicant against her pre-trial detention was dismissed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 15 December 2014.
On 29 January 2015 the Bucharest County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for another thirty days. The applicant’s complaint against the extension was allowed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
The applicant was released from detention on 11 February 2015 after two months of detention.
The proceedings on the merits are still pending.
2. The applicant’s conditions of detention on the premises of the Bucharest Police Station detention facility
The applicant claims that she was placed in a cell of 9 square meters, which she shared with three other detainees. She also complains about the improper conditions of hygiene, lack of ventilation and natural light. According to the applicant, the toilet was not separated from the living area by any partition, offering no privacy.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Romanian Code of the Criminal Procedure concerning the order to appear before the investigating authorities provide as follows:
Article 265
“(1) A person may be brought before a criminal investigation body or a court on the basis of an order to appear, if having been previously summonsed, he or she has not appeared, and his or her questioning or presence is necessary or if the summons could not be duly communicated because the person avoids the receipt of the summons.
(2) An offender or a defendant may be brought [before the authorities] on the basis of an order to appear even before being summonsed, if the criminal investigation body or the court considers that the measure is necessary for the determination of the case.
....
(11) The person brought [before the authorities] by virtue of an order to appear shall be heard immediately (...).
(12) The person brought [before the authorities] on the basis of an order to appear remains at the disposal of the judicial authorities only for such time as is required to question him or her, but not more than eight hours, except where his or her remand in custody or pre-trial detention has been ordered.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of her detention at the Bucharest Police Station detention facility, particularly with regard to overcrowding, poor hygiene conditions and inadequate food.
2. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no legal basis for her detention from 12 noon on 4 December 2014 and 1.10 a.m. on 5 December 2014.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention on the premises of the Bucharest Police Station detention facility in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account her allegations regarding the overcrowding, improper hygiene conditions and inadequate food?
2. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty for more than twelve hours between 12 noon on 4 December 2014 and 01.10 a.m. on 5 December 2014 fall within sub-paragraph (b) or (c) of this provision?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy