THIRD SECTION
Application no. 56280/07
Ioan TĂU
against Romania
lodged on 12 December 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ioan Tău, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Cluj Napoca.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the criminal proceedings
The applicant was arrested and investigated in criminal proceedings concerning five international drug-trafficking networks. The proceedings were widely reported in the media, as they concerned one of the biggest drug-trafficking cases investigated by the Romanian authorities at the time.
2. The applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention
On 14 July 2003, at about 00.30 p.m., two police officers took the applicant into custody and transported him from his home to the Cluj Police Inspectorate. According to the applicant, they did not present any warrant or other legal document justifying his detention. Furthermore, they did not inform him of the reason for his detention.
At the Police Inspectorate he was invited to give a statement about P.A. and F.D. in connection with drug trafficking.
The applicant alleges that he gave the statement in the absence of a lawyer and that he was ill-treated by police officers.
He was then transported to Bucharest without being informed about the reasons for his detention. They arrived at the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice located in Bucharest at about 11.30 p.m.
According to the applicant, the prosecutor took his first statement in the presence of an officially appointed lawyer, G.S.C., who had also been assisting two other co-accused, P.A. and F.D.
At about 1.30 a.m. the prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for a period of three days in the applicant’s name.
The next day the applicant was brought before the High Court of Cassation and Justice for the examination of the prosecutor’s request concerning his pre-trial detention. He alleges that he was assisted by the same officially appointed lawyer despite the fact that he insisted to be assisted by a chosen lawyer.
On 29 July 2003 the applicant was confronted with F.D. The latter stated that he had never seen the applicant packing and dissimulating drugs to be sent to the west of Europe, but that he had heard about his involvement in these activities from P.A.
His pre-trial detention was repeatedly extended by the Bucharest County Court by interlocutory judgments concerning all the accused persons who had been arrested. The number of persons concerned varied from twelve to seventeen. The applicant lodged appeals against the interlocutory judgments; all the appeals were dismissed by final decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
3. The proceedings on the merits of the case
On 25 September 2003 the prosecutor issued an indictment concerning twenty‑six accused persons, including the applicant, and the next day the case was registered with the Bucharest County Court.
On 9 September 2005, I.I., a witness under protection gave a statement before the court. She was asked to mention the members of the drug trafficking network and the role played by each of them. She did not mention anything about the applicant although in her initial statement given before the prosecutor on 9 June 2003 she stated that many drug transports left from the applicant’s home. She finished by stating that “there were no other persons involved in drug trafficking”.
The applicant had repeatedly requested to be allowed to question P.M. and F.D. since he had not been present when they had given their initial statements, which referred to his involvement in drug trafficking.
On 29 September 2005 the judicial investigation was closed and the lawyers of the accused and the accused themselves submitted their arguments on the merits of the case; the delivery of the first‑instance judgment was postponed to 4 October 2005.
By a first-instance judgement of 4 October 2005 the Bucharest County Court found the applicant guilty and convicted him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. He was found guilty of taking part in international drug trafficking by facilitating the transport of drugs.
His conviction was based on statements given by protected witness I.I, and three co-accused P.A., P.M. and F.D.
The County Court found that the arguments raised by the applicant in his defence were not consistent and logical.
The applicant appealed against the conviction. He disputed his involvement in the criminal offence he had been found guilty of and disagreed with the way the trial court had established the relevant facts. He submitted in particular that the trial court had mainly based its decision on statements made by co-accused before the prosecutor. He pointed out that I.I. had changed her statement before the court and that he could not confront F.D. and P.M. in open court despite his repeated requests.
On 7 June 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in respect of the applicant and his sentence was reduced to eight years’ imprisonment on the grounds that he was an accomplice, had no criminal record and he was more than sixty years old. The Appeal Court held that the applicant had just supported the activities of the gang by providing help with the packing of the drugs which were to be transported, by storing them on the premises of his home and then allowing them to be collected by other members of the network. The court made no reference to the applicant’s complaints about the administration of evidence by the first‑instance court.
On 14 June 2007, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. It upheld the decision of 7 June 2006 endorsing the Bucharest Court of Appeal’s reasoning.
By an interlocutory judgment of 3 July 2007, the Bucharest District Court ordered the release of the applicant under probation. The applicant was released from prison on 10 July 2007, seven days after the interlocutory judgment was rendered.
4. Complaint regarding the alleged ill-treatment on 14 July 2003
On 9 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint against the alleged ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected during his arrest on 14 May 2003. On 8 March 2005 the Ministry of Interior sent him a letter stating that an investigation had been conducted in this respect and the conclusion had been that his allegations were unsubstantiated. The applicant did not lodge any further complaint with the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was beaten by police officers on 14 July 2003.
2. Under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, he complains that on 14 May 2003 he was deprived of his liberty without any legal basis, in so far as no order for his placement in police custody was issued for the first twelve hours of his detention. He also complains that he was unlawfully detained for the period between 3 and 10 July 2007 despite his release being ordered by the Bucharest District Court on 3 July 2007.
3. Under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest.
4. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the duration of his pre-trail detention exceeded a reasonable time and that the reasons provided by the domestic courts to justify the extension of the detention measure were of a standard type, not focused on his individual case.
5. Under Article 6 § 3 (c) the applicant alleges that on the first two occasions when he was questioned he was assisted by an officially appointed lawyer who had also been assisting the co-accused P.A., P. M. and F.D.
6. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that P.M. and F.D., the main witnesses against him, were not examined in open court.
7. Relying in substance on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that while held in the detention facility of the Police Inspectorate he was forbidden to receive visits from his family and to send and receive correspondence.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty after 3 July 2007 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c) and d) of the Convention? In particular, did the following impair the overall fairness of the proceedings:
a) the fact of being denied the assistance of a counsel of his own choice during the first two sessions of questioning,
b) the fact of being designated a lawyer who was already representing other defendants in the same proceedings,
c) the fact of not being given the opportunity to confront in open court the accused whose statements had been relied upon in convicting him?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy