BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
29749/07
by Viorel BADEA
against Moldova
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 17 January 2012 as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López
Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2007,
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 Viorel Badea, is a Moldovan national who
was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. The Moldovan
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- On
20 October 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion
of having stolen property.
- He
was allegedly subjected to psychological pressure in order to confess
to the crime with which he had been charged, following which he made
self-incriminating statements. He subsequently confirmed his
statements and asked the courts to reduce his sentence in view of his
family’s poor financial situation. He had allegedly had to
steal in order to feed his family. He also claimed that he had never
seen the State-appointed lawyer handling his case, who had signed all
the documents relating to the matter after the fact in order to lend
an appearance of legitimacy to the investigation.
- On
21 November 2005 the applicant was convicted by the Ciocana District
Court. That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of
Appeal on 19 January 2006. The applicant did not inform the Court of
any subsequent judgments concerning his case.
- After
his arrest, the applicant was detained in Ciocana police station for
three days in a cell measuring just over 1 sq. m together with four
or five other detainees. It was impossible to sleep or sit there –
one could only stand. There was no window or other means of
ventilation.
- The
applicant was subsequently transferred to the premises of the General
Police Directorate (“the GPD”). However, he was brought
back to Ciocana police station several times for further questioning
and each time he was detained in the same 1 sq. m cell as previously.
In the GPD’s premises he was placed in cell no. 11, which
measures 2.5 x 3 m and in which twelve detainees were held. The cell
was unventilated, dirty and damp. No daily walk was allowed. A window
of 50 cm x 50 cm was covered with thick metal netting preventing
almost all sunshine and air from reaching the cell. The cell had a
toilet, next to the dining table. Water was available from a tap
installed above the toilet. Detainees had to take turns to sleep. The
cell was infested with parasitic insects. No bed linen was available.
No doctor visited the cell. The prosecutor responsible for checking
conditions of detention fully supported the police and did not take
action in response to any complaints.
- Three
weeks later the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in
Chişinău and placed in cell no. 126. The cell was in
the basement, had no windows and was not heated; it was very cold and
damp. There were more detainees than sleeping places in the cell.
- On 15 March 2006 he was transferred to prison no. 15 in
Cricova.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 and 13 of the
Convention due to the inhuman conditions of his detention and the
lack of remedies in respect of that complaint.
- He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention
that he had been deprived of a proper defence and that the courts had
not ordered an expert report to determine the value of the stolen
items.
- He
further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the courts
had refused to reduce his sentence.
- The
applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that he had
not been given legal texts or other information needed for his
defence.
- He
further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had not
been given a Russian translation of the judgments given in his case.
- The
applicant complained under Article 17 of the Convention of corruption
in the law-enforcement and judicial authorities in Moldova.
- He lastly cited Article 53 of the Convention, without
giving further details.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had
been detained in inhuman conditions at Ciocana police station, the
General Police Directorate’s premises and prison no. 13.
Article
3 reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- He
also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of
effective remedies in respect of his complaint concerning the inhuman
conditions of his detention. Article 13 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Court notes that in his application and further correspondence the
applicant failed to inform it of his transfer, on 15 March 2006, to
prison no. 15 in Cricova (see paragraph 9 above). He did not
complain about the conditions of his detention in that prison, nor
did he give a description of those conditions. The Court will
therefore deal only with the complaint concerning the conditions of
the applicant’s detention prior to 15 March 2006.
-
The Court considers that, as the applicant was no longer detained
after 15 March 2006 in the conditions which he had described in his
application, the running of the six-month time-limit for lodging an
application in respect of those conditions started from that date.
However, he lodged his application on 17 June 2007, more than six
months later.
It
follows that these complaints must be rejected as being out of time,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other complaints
- The Court has examined the
remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him
(see paragraphs 11-16 above). However, in the light of all the
material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained
of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention and its Protocols.
- It
follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Josep
Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
