I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BABIUC v. ROMANIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2019-12-03
• Communication date: 2017-03-30
• Application number(s): 55958/15
• Country:   ROU
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 8, 8-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.842976
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Constantin-Gavril Babiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Rădăuţi.
He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Mateuţ and Mr L.A. Criste, lawyers practising in Cluj‐Napoca and Arad respectively.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 18 June 2014 the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor’s Office (“the DNA”) started a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of involvement in repeated corruption offences.
On 23 June 2014 the applicant was arrested and the prosecutor ordered his remand in custody.
On the same day the Bucharest Court of Appeal delivered an interlocutory judgment ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention for thirty days.
It made regular interlocutory judgments extending his pre‐trial detention.
By a decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice delivered on 23 September 2014 the file was transferred to Cluj Court of Appeal at the applicant’s request in order to avoid any possible lack of impartiality on the part of the judges.
Excerpts from the investigation file, including recordings of conversations between the applicant and other defendants or third parties, which had been obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation conducted prior to the criminal prosecution, were subsequently published in several newspapers before the applicant had been committed for trial.
On 3 October 2014 the prosecutor issued an indictment in respect of the applicant and four co-accused, and the case was registered with the Cluj Court of Appeal.
The applicant was charged with repeated passive corruption, complicity in and instigation of money laundering, and trafficking.
On 5 May 2015 the pre-trial chamber judge of the High Court of Cassation changed the applicant’s pre-trial detention into house arrest.
The applicant remained under house arrest until 16 June 2015, when he was released under judicial supervision.
According to the latest information, the criminal proceedings are still pending and no judgment on the merits has been delivered yet.
2.
The applicant’s conditions of detention a) Bucharest police station The applicant was transported to the detention facility of the Bucharest police station on 23 June 2014, immediately after his pre-trial detention had been ordered by the court.
He claims that he was detained in a cell measuring approximately 8 to 10 sq.
m with five other co-detainees and that despite the fact that he is a non-smoker, he had to share the cell with smokers.
He also alleges that the cell was full of insects and the walls were blood stained.
He had access to outdoor exercise for one hour every day in a small courtyard.
b) Cluj police station On 8 October 2014 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility of the Cluj police station, where he spent five days.
He claims that he shared a small cell measuring approximately 6 sq.
m with three other co‐detainees.
According to the applicant, it was difficult to access the toilets as they were in the corridor.
The cell lacked natural light and ventilation and the stench from the sewage system was noxious.
c) Gherla Prison Between 14 October and 6 May 2015 the applicant was detained in Gherla Prison.
He complains mainly of overcrowding.
B.
Relevant law and practice 1.
Relevant international and domestic reports concerning the material conditions of detention in Romanian prisons Excerpts from the relevant domestic legislation and international reports on prison conditions are given in the case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no.
35972/05, §§ 113-29, 24 July 2012).
The findings of the Romanian Helsinki Committee following its visit to the Cluj police station detention facility on 25 September 2013 are set out in the case Apostu v. Romania (no.
22765/12, § 66, 3 February 2015).
2.
Guidelines on relations between the Romanian judicial system and the media On 1 June 2012 the High Council of the Judiciary (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii – “the HCJ”) adopted guidelines on the relationship between the judicial system in Romania and the media.
The document was published on the HCJ’s website and was communicated to all courts and prosecutor’s offices.
The relevant rules applicable at the prosecution stage read as follows: Article 22 “Communication between the public prosecutor’s office and the media during the criminal prosecution must respect the specific nature of this stage of criminal proceedings, which takes place without the publicity that characterises the trial.” Article 23 “The rules established in this Section are meant to ensure respect for the presumption of innocence and protection for private and family life, to avoid disturbing or jeopardising the proper course of the investigation and to avoid endangering the victim, witnesses or their families.” Article 24 “The files of cases that are pending before the prosecutor’s offices cannot be perused by media representatives.
Their access to information of public concern regarding the investigation stage may take place by the issuing of press releases or by the provision of information upon request, under the law.” Article 26 “Copies or excerpts of documents referring to evidence in the files of cases pending before criminal prosecution authorities or copies of audio/video recordings made during the identification and arrest of persons or the execution of an arrest warrant ... or at any other time during the criminal investigation, originating from the judicial authorities, shall not be released to mass-media representatives.” COMPLAINTS 1.
Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in the detention facilities of the Bucharest and Cluj police stations and in Gherla Prison, mainly in respect of overcrowding, lack of natural light and inadequate hygiene conditions.
2.
Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that excerpts from the investigation file, including recordings of his private conversations, were published in the press before the prosecutor filed the indictment with the court.