O

I.R

IT

IE

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VOICU v. ROMANIA

LU

EA

JU

ST

(Application no. 22015/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
10 June 2014

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

IE

IT

ST

JU

EA

LU

I.R

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

IE

I.R

In the case of Voicu v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Jn ikuta,
Dragoljub Popovi,
Luis Lpez Guerra,
Johannes Silvis,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

IT

PROCEDURE

LU

EA

JU

ST

1. The case originated in an application (no. 22015/10) against Romania

lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) by a
Romanian national, Mr Ctlin Voicu (the applicant), on 12 April 2010.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Cazacu, Mr I. Iordchescu,
Mr N. erban and Mr M. Dinu, lawyers practising in Bucharest. The
Romanian Government (the Government) were represented by their
Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 7 June 2011 the complaints concerning the applicants
handcuffing in public, public exposure during the trial and the alleged lack
of review of the preventive measures imposed on him during the trial were
communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible.
4. On 11 December 2012 additional complaints about the conditions of
the applicants pre-trial detention (lodged on 13 December 2011) and
transport during detention (lodged on 12 April 2011) were communicated to
the Government.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bucharest. At the time of
the facts of the case, the applicant was in private legal practice and was a
senator.
6. On 10 December 2009 the Anti-Corruption Department of the
Prosecutors Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice
(referred to herein as the prosecutor and the DNA) started criminal
proceedings against the applicant (urmrirea penal) on suspicion of
trading in influence (traffic de influen). In particular, the prosecutor
alleged that: (i) the applicant had accepted 200,000 euros (EUR) from a
businessman, C.C., in return for using his connection to Judge F.C. of the
High Court of Cassation and Justice in order to influence the outcome of a
case pending before that court which concerned a dispute between C.C.s
company and a state agency; and (ii) that he had accepted money from
M.L., under the pretext of providing legal services through his law firm, in
order to facilitate M.L.s access to the head of the police with the aim of
discussing criminal investigations that were being conducted against M.L.
7. On 11 December 2009 the applicant was returning home during the
day in a car belonging to the Senate. Close to his home, his route was
blocked by another car. Several armed individuals jumped out, dragged the
applicant from his car and, in front of his neighbours and a crowd of
passers-by, handcuffed him and put him in their car. He was then taken to
the DNAs headquarters, where he was informed of the criminal
proceedings against him. The applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor.
8. At the DNAs headquarters, the applicant found out that he had been
under investigation for a crime against national security. However, the
prosecutor had decided on 27 November 2009 not to prosecute that offence.
The evidence gathered in that investigation, in particular through
intercepting the applicants telephone, had led the investigators to suspect
the commission by the applicant of the crimes of corruption for which he
was currently under investigation by the DNA.
9. On the same date, the prosecutor issued an order prohibiting the
applicant from leaving town for thirty days.
10. Upon the applicants request, on 12 January 2010 the prosecutor sent
him a copy of the decision of 27 November 2009.
11. On 9 March 2010 the prosecutor sought, through the Minister of
Justice, Parliaments approval to arrest the applicant. On the same date, the
DNA issued a press release informing the public that it had sought
authorisation for the arrest.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

A. The leaks to the press

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

12. From the moment the DNA informed the public about the
proceedings against the applicant, the media took great interest in the case.
Numerous panel discussions were broadcast and journalists and politicians
commented publicly on the events.
13. Excerpts from conversations between the defendants which had been
obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation
conducted prior to the criminal prosecution made it into the newspapers
before the applicant and his co-accused had been committed for trial. Those
excerpts gave the impression that the applicant and Judge F.C. had tried to
manipulate some of the judges from the panel ruling in a commercial case
involving C.C., and had reported back to the latter on the progress of those
alleged manoeuvres. In the conversations among them, the applicant and the
co-defendants expressed in strong terms their disappointment that the
outcome had not been favourable to C.C., and made assumptions as to
whether the remaining judges on the panel had been influenced by someone
else.
14. The transcripts of telephone conversations intercepted during the
surveillance operation first appeared in the press between 18 and 22 March
2010.
15. Other pieces of evidence from the prosecution file were likewise
published and commented on in the press.
B. The applicants arrest and pre-trial detention

LU

EA

16. On 24 March 2010 the Senate met to discuss the prosecutors

request. The applicant was unable to take part in the session, as he was in
the hospital at the time. The Senate allowed the prosecutors request.
17. Upon obtaining the Senates approval, the prosecutor submitted a
detention order to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which examined
it in private on 30 March 2010 and endorsed it. The applicant was arrested
on the same day.
18. The High Court then took a statement from the applicant and
proceeded to examine the prosecutors application for the applicants
pre-trial detention. It heard arguments from the parties, reviewed the
evidence presented by the prosecutor and concluded that there were serious
indications and evidence in the file that the applicant had committed the
crimes of which he was accused and that he had abused his important
official position, thereby damaging the reputation of the legislature and the
judiciary, as well as undermining the publics trust in the judicial system. It
therefore considered that the specific danger that the applicant posed to the
public order was serious enough to justify his detention.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

19. Upon the applicants appeal, by a final decision of 2 April 2010 the
High Court, sitting as a nine-judge bench, upheld the previous decision. At
the applicants request, this hearing was held in secret and journalists and
the public were removed from the courtroom. The High Court found that the
evidence lawfully included in the file justified a reasonable suspicion that
the applicant had committed the crimes under investigation. It also
dismissed the applicants argument as to procedural flaws, in so far as it
found that the prosecutor had heard the applicant on 11 December 2009 and
considered that his right to mount a defence had not been disregarded
because of the mere fact that a certain lapse of time had passed between the
date of his statement and that of the arrest order.
20. The applicant sought his conditional release. On 12 April 2010 the
High Court dismissed his application, on the grounds that the evidence in
the file indicated that he had tried to influence one of the witnesses and to
create false evidence in his defence. It also considered that the reasons
underlying the court decision to place him in pre-trial detention were still
valid, given that, in particular, such a short time had passed since that
decision.
This decision became final on 16 April 2010, when the High Court
dismissed the applicants appeal.
21. The High Court examined the applicants pre-trial detention on
ten more occasions and the applicant repeatedly applied for release pending
trial conditioned on the obligation not to leave town (decisions of 23 April,
25 May, 16 June, 14 July, 10 September, 6 October, 16 November 2010,
12 January, 9 February and 4 March 2011).
The High Court considered that the evidence in the file offered a
reasonable indication that the applicant had committed the crimes he was
accused of and that his continued detention was needed given the difficulty
involved in investigating such crimes. It also referred to his attempt to
influence witnesses, to his personal situation (first time on trial, family
situation), his personality, his office during the alleged commission of the
offences, and the nature and severity of the crimes under investigation. The
High Court also took into account the fact that the proceedings on the merits
had only recently started, on 20 May 2010.
It referred to the European Courts case-law and the relevant Council of
Europe texts, and considered that the grounds for the applicants detention
were still valid and the time spent in pre-trial detention was not excessive
within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention.
For these reasons, it did not consider it opportune to substitute the
preventive measure that had been applied with a less strict measure.
22. The appeals lodged by the applicant against each of these court
orders were dismissed by a different panel of the High Court on 26 April,
31 May, 21 June, 22 July, 30 September, 13 October and 29 November
2010, 20 January, 28 February and 14 March 2011 respectively.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

23. On 4 April 2011 the High Court examined a new application for
release on probation lodged by the applicant and decided that he could be
released. It held that the vast majority of the evidence for the prosecution
had already been heard in court, thus the risk of the applicant trying to
influence witnesses was no longer acute. The court ordered him not to leave
town and not to contact his co-accused.
24. However, on 11 April 2011 the decision was quashed and a
five-judge panel of the High Court dismissed the applicants application for
release. The High Court examined the suitability of releasing the applicant
in the particular circumstances of the case, considered the evidence before it
and referred to the Courts case-law on the subject. It considered that the
severity of the crimes allegedly committed and the particular circumstances
in which they had occurred, coupled with the applicants attempts to
influence a witness, were sufficient factors to justify extending the
applicants detention pending trial, which remained the only adequate
preventive measure. It also considered that the overall length of the measure
remained reasonable in the applicants particular situation.
25. On four more occasions (27 April, 11 May, 8 June and 12 July 2011)
the High Court was called to examine the necessity of keeping the applicant
in detention and each time it decided to release him pending trial for the
same reasons as those advanced on 4 April 2011. The High Court replaced
the measure with the obligation not to leave town.
However, each order, save for the last one, was quashed by a five-judge
panel of the High Court and the applicants detention was extended (on
29 April, 24 May and 17 June 2011 respectively).
26. On 18 July 2011 the High Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the
prosecutor against the court order of 12 July 2011.
As a consequence, the applicant was released from detention on the same
day.
C. The conditions of the applicants pre-trial detention

LU

27. The applicant was arrested on 30 March 2010 and remained in

pre-trial detention until 12 July 2011. He described the overall conditions of
his detention as follows: it was very cold in the cell, hot water was only
available for one hour a week and basic hygiene was lacking. He had to
share a 9 sq. m cell with ten other inmates and the lack of space triggered
violent clashes within the cell.
28. The Prison Administration submitted a full record of the applicants
stay in prison, giving details of the cells the applicant was kept in, their
occupancy and the facilities offered. According to this information, the
applicant was held in Bucharest Remand Centre No. 1 (Bucharest Remand
Centre) on 30 March 2010 and again from 16 April 2010 to 13 July 2010.
He was held in two separate cells, one of 9 sq. m with four beds and another

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

of 14.57 sq. m with six beds. The cells were at full occupancy at that time.
Each cell was equipped with beds, a table, chairs, a squat toilet, a sink with
cold and hot water and a shower separated from the living space by a
curtain. The inmates cleaned the cell themselves with products provided by
the administration or purchased by them.
29. The applicant described these cells as badly lit and ventilated, humid
and foul smelling. He further explained that because the toilet was not
partitioned off from the beds, the inmates lacked privacy when using it. The
tap for washing dishes and clothes and for showering was placed above the
toilet and the water ran straight into the toilet. There was frequently no
running water at all, which rendered it impossible to flush the toilet. The hot
water was never sufficient for all of the inmates to take showers.
30. The records show that from 30 March to 16 April 2010 the applicant
was held in Jilava Prison Hospital in a hospital room measuring 30 sq. m
which was equipped with five beds and had access to hot water twice a
week.
31. The applicant spent the remainder of his pre-trial detention in
Bucharest-Rahova Prison, where he was held, at his request and because of
his position as a senator, in a cell for vulnerable individuals. The cell
measured 24.59 sq. m, had eight bunk beds and was at full occupancy at that
time. The cell had a window which allowed in natural light and ventilation.
The detainees had at their disposal a table, benches, shelves and a TV set.
Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet, sinks and a
shower. Cold water was continually available and hot water was available
twice a week. The cell was heated to 18oC during the winter. The applicant
explained that it was very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter; the
heating system was old and broke down frequently, leaving the cells
brutally cold. Hot water was scarce and there was never enough for all of
the inmates to take showers.
D. The conditions of the applicants transport during detention

LU

32. On 28 February 2011 the applicant was transported from

Bucharest-Rahova Prison to the prosecutors office in Piteti and back, a
trip of around two hours each way. According to the applicant, they left in
the morning from Bucharest-Rahova Prison. He was transported in the back
of a prison van. Although the outside temperature was no more than 2-3oC,
there was no heating in the van; in addition cold air from outside was able to
enter the van through two hatches in the roof which could not be closed
completely. There was insufficient light in the van because there were no
windows in the detainees compartment, the only source of light being a
small window separating the detainees compartment from the drivers
cabin. The applicant, who was alone in the back of the van, had nothing to

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

sit on or lean against, thus having to stand up during the entire journey with
nothing to hold on to.
When the van arrived in Piteti and returned to Bucharest, he was
allowed to stretch, warm up and do some physical exercise.
33. The Prison Administration informed the Government that the
applicant had been transported in a van designed for transporting sixteen
people, as follows: two people in the forward cabin, ten detainees on chairs
in a separate compartment, and four guards in another separate compartment
in the back of the van. The van had natural and artificial ventilation, a
heating system, and artificial light, which was kept on throughout each
journey in order to allow the guards to keep watch over the detainees. The
applicant had been transported alone, thus having ten chairs at his disposal.
The journey had started at 8.45 am and ended at 1.35 pm.
34. In his observations in reply to the official information supplied by
the Prison Administration, the applicant explained that the back of the van
where he had been held had been completely opaque without any natural
light and that the artificial lighting and the heating system had not been
working. He reiterated that the two hatches on the roof had remained open
during the journey, resulting in freezing temperatures inside the van. The
guards had had blankets to cover themselves during the journey, but he had
not been given one. In addition, the seats in the detainees compartment had
not been fitted with safety belts, which had made it difficult to keep his
balance.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

LU

EA

35. The relevant findings and recommendations of the European

Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the CPT) and the reports by the Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, made following numerous visits
to Romanian prisons, including Bucharest-Rahova Prison, are summarised
in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, 125-1299, 24 July 2012).
36. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,
adopted on 30 August 1955 by the First United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva, and
approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution 663 C
(XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977 (U.N. Doc.
A/CONF/611, annex I, with amendments), in so far as relevant, read as
follows:
Removal of prisoners
45. (1) When the prisoners are being removed to or from an institution, they shall
be exposed to public view as little as possible, and proper safeguards shall be adopted
to protect them from insult, curiosity and publicity in any form.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

(2) The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light,

or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship, shall be
prohibited.
(3) The transport of prisoners shall be carried out at the expense of the
administration and equal conditions shall obtain for all of them.

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

37. The CPT assessed the conditions of transport of detainees by large

capacity vans in Craiova and Ploieti Prisons in 2006 (CPT/Inf (2008) 41).
The journeys examined lasted for around one hour to ninety minutes. It
found that the vans offered insufficient space (8 sq. m for forty people in the
central compartment and 0.6 sq. m to 0.9 sq. m for the individual
compartments at the back of the van). Some of the individual compartments
had no natural light or ventilation. In its response, the State informed the
CPT that all vans that were unsuitable for the transport of detainees had
been taken out of use. The CPT acknowledged the improvement and urged
the State to not overcrowd the vans and to ensure that all compartments
were properly lit and ventilated.
38. Under Article 36 of the Use of Public Roads Act (Government
Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002), drivers and passengers must wear a
seat belt in any seat fitted with one.
39. The relevant excerpts from domestic law and practice concerning
possible legal avenues for seeking redress in respect of a leak of non-public
information from a prosecution file are described in Cuneanu v. Romania,
no. 22018/10, 35-41, 16 April 2013. In addition, in its Article 277, the
new Criminal Code establishes criminal liability for leaking evidence and
official documents from a criminal file while criminal investigations are in
progress, if such an offence is committed by a civil servant who has become
aware of such information by virtue of his work. The offence is punishable
by one month to one year in prison or by imposition of a criminal fine.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON

ACCOUNT OF BEING HANDCUFFED IN PUBLIC

LU

40. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he

had been handcuffed whilst being taken from official buildings to court
during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had
immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered
that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in
the circumstances of the case. Article 3 reads as follows:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

A. The parties position

I.R

41. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies. In their view, the applicant should have lodged either a complaint
about being handcuffed in public under Law no. 275/2006, or a criminal
complaint for abuse of office or ill-treatment against the police officers who
had caused him to be exposed to the press.
42. The applicant contested the effectiveness of those remedies in his
case.
B. The Courts assessment

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

43. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to
afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right
the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to
it. However, the only remedies which Article 35 of the Convention requires
to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and at the same
time are available and sufficient. The existence of such remedies must be
sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which
they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. It falls to the
respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see,
among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94,
74-75, ECHR 1999-IV, and Vukovi and Others v. Serbia [GC],
no. 17153/11, 69-77, 25 March 2014).
44. The Court reiterates that it has recently examined identical
complaints, raised by F.C. and C.C., the applicants co-defendants in the
domestic proceedings (see Costiniu v. Romania (dec.), no. 22016/10,
19 February 2013, and Cuneanu, cited above, 44-48). In those cases, it
found that the interested parties had had effective remedies at their disposal
with which to complain that they had been exposed wearing handcuffs in
public.
45. The Court has no reasons to depart, in the present case, from those
findings and reaffirms that the applicant should have complained to the
authorities about the fact that he had been kept handcuffed in public places
(see Costiniu (dec.), cited above, 35, and Cuneanu, cited above, 48).
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 1 and
4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
PRE-TRIAL DETENTION
46. Again citing Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained
of the conditions of his detention.

10

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

A. Admissibility

47. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.

I.R

B. Merits
1. The parties position

IE

48. The applicant reiterated that he had been detained in poor conditions,
lacking in basic hygiene and personal space.
49. Relying on the information from the prison records, the Government
contested the applicants allegations on this point.

IT

2. The Courts assessment

LU

EA

JU

ST

50. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law

regarding conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kuda v. Poland [GC],
no. 30210/96, 90-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Kalashnikov v. Russia,
no. 47095/99, 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Iacov Stanciu, cited
above, 165-170). It reiterates, in particular, that ill-treatment must attain
a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3; the
assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative: it depends
on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the
treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical
or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of
the victim (see Kuda, cited above, 91).
51. The Court has considered extreme lack of space as a central factor in
its analysis of whether an applicants detention conditions complied with
Article 3 (see Karaleviius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, 39, 7 April 2005).
In a series of cases the Court has considered that a clear case of
overcrowding is a sufficient element for concluding that Article 3 of the
Convention was violated (see Colesnicov v. Romania, no. 36479/03,
78-82, 21 December 2010, and Budaca v. Romania, no. 57260/10,
40-45, 17 July 2012). Moreover, it has already found violations of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of
detention in Romanian detention facilities, including Bucharest Remand
Centre and Bucharest-Rahova Prison, especially with respect to
overcrowding and lack of hygiene (see, for example, Cuneanu, cited
above, 62, and Geanopol v. Romania, no. 1777/06, 66, 5 March 2013).
52. In the case at hand, the Court observes, based on all the material at
its disposal, that the personal space allowed to the applicant in detention fell
short of the requirements set in the case-law. The Government have failed to

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

11

IE

I.R

put forward any argument that would allow the Court to reach a different
conclusion.
53. Moreover, the applicants submissions in respect of the overcrowded
and unhygienic conditions correspond to the general findings by the CPT in
respect of Romanian prisons (see paragraph 35 above).
54. The Court concludes that the conditions of detention caused the
applicant harm that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in
detention and have thus reached the minimum level of severity necessary to
constitute degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the
Convention.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in
respect of the material conditions of the applicants pre-trial detention.

IT

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT DURING
DETENTION

JU

A. Admissibility

ST

55. The applicant complained that the conditions in which he had been
transported from the prison in Bucharest to the prosecutors office in Piteti
during his detention had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment
prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

EA

56. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.
B. Merits

1. The parties arguments

LU

57. The applicant reiterated that he had felt grossly humiliated by the
conditions of transport between the prison and the prosecutors office. He
refuted the description of the prisoner transport van offered by the
Government (paragraph 33 above), but submitted that he was unable to
bring further evidence to support his allegations, as such evidence was
exclusively in the hands of the authorities.
58. The Government contested the applicants assertions about the
conditions of transport and pointed out that he had failed to present any
proof of his statements. They contended that the applicant had been
transported alone, in good conditions, with heating and artificial light

12

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

throughout the journey. They sent a copy of the vans registration card and
car inspection record.
2. The Courts assessment

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

59. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be

supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has
generally applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently
strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted
presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, 100,
ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that Convention proceedings, such as
the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous
application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges
something must prove that allegation) because in certain instances the
respondent Government alone have access to information capable of
corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a Governments part to
submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to
the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicants allegations
(see Ahmet zkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, 426, 6 April 2004).
60. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the
applicant complained about the shortcomings of prisoner transport. He
referred to one single occurrence (see, in contrast, Khudoyorov v. Russia,
no. 6847/02, 119, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)). He gave two descriptions of
the conditions of his transport, which coincide in so far as they refer to a
lack of light and heating in the vehicle, but differ concerning his ability to
sit down during the journey. Whereas in the applicants first letter he
complained that he had had to stand during the journey to and from the
prosecutors office, in his second set of submissions he complained of a lack
of seatbelts, which he asserted had rendered it difficult to keep his balance
while seated (see paragraphs 32 and 34 above).
61. The Government presented the technical specifications of the van
and a detailed description of the conditions inside it, which comply with the
CPT requirements (see paragraph 33 above). This information contradicted
the applicants description. The Court attaches relevance to the CPTs
acknowledging that after 2008 inappropriate vehicles were no longer used
for the transport of detainees (see paragraph 37 above).
62. The Court further reiterates that the UN Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners recommend that transport be organised in
conditions of adequate ventilation and light and without unnecessary
physical hardship for detainees (see paragraph 36 above). Moreover, the
CPT recommends that vans be fitted with adequate seating and fixtures that
would prevent prisoners from losing their balance when the vehicle moves
(see CPT/Inf (2002) 36 [Slovenia], 95). The national legislation does not

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

13

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

require that seat belts be fitted to all available seats in a car (see paragraph
38 above).
63. In these circumstances, the absence of seatbelts alone cannot lead to
a violation of Article 3. Nevertheless, the Court can envisage how, in
complete darkness, the absence of seat belts might cause detainees to lose
their balance, thus putting them in a humiliating situation. In addition, a lack
of heating on a winter day could add to the distress suffered by a detainee
during his or her transport. It remains to be ascertained if that was the case
in the present application.
64. The parties versions differ on this point. While the applicant
claimed that he had been transported in complete darkness and cold, the
Government argued, based on official documents, that the heating and
artificial light systems in the vehicle had been functioning properly. It is
regrettable that the applicant did not raise the matter with the authorities at
the time: he did not complain, either to the prosecutor when he arrived in
Piteti, or to the post-sentencing judge, after his return to Rahova Prison.
The Court does not have enough evidence to consider whether such
remedies could be effective either as preventive or as compensatory
measures in cases of improper conditions of transport not caused by
systemic flaws (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, 54, 19 June 2008);
the response by the authorities would nevertheless have provided valuable
information allowing for a better assessment of the situation.
65. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the applicants prison medical
records that he needed special care after the journey. While the existence or
not of such consequences for the applicants health is not a prerequisite for
finding a violation, such records would have allowed the Court to draw
inferences as to the conditions of the applicants transport.
66. Lastly, assuming that there was no heating in the van, the agents
should have given the applicant a blanket or, failing that, the applicant could
have asked them for one. However, nothing in the applicants submissions
indicates that he did so and was refused.
67. In the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court
considers that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the applicant
was transported in conditions that breached the requirements of Article 3 of
the Convention (see also, mutatis mutandis, Ali v. Romania (no. 2),
no. 30595/09, 46, 15 October 2013).
Consequently there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on this account.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION
CONVENTION

OF

ARTICLE

OF

THE

68. The applicant complained that the courts had refused to take into
consideration other preventive measures that would have been less

14

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

restrictive than pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 3 of the

Convention, which reads as follows:

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c)

of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release
pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

A. The parties position

ST

IT

IE

I.R

69. The Government averred that the applicants continued detention

had been justified in the light of the weighty evidence against him, had been
reviewed at regular intervals by the courts and had not been unreasonably
lengthy. They pointed out that the first preventive measure taken against the
applicant had been less restrictive, but that later on his detention had
become necessary as he had attempted to tamper with the evidence.
70. The applicant contended that the arguments brought forth by the
domestic courts to dismiss his repeated requests for reassessment of the
preventive measure had been purely formal, repetitive, standardised and had
failed to take into account the real situation in the case and the advancement
of the proceedings.
B. The Courts assessment

LU

EA

JU

71. The Court makes reference to the principles it has established in its
case-law concerning the acceptable justifications for pre-trial detention and
the length of such a measure. In particular, it reiterates that a person charged
with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can
show that there are relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continued
detention. Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short,
must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. Quasi-automatic
prolongation of detention contravenes the guarantees set forth in
Article 5 3 (see Blteanu v. Romania, no. 142/04, 62, 16 July 2013 with
further reference).
72. The Court has developed in its case-law four fundamental
justifications for detention pending trial: the danger of absconding, of
tampering with evidence, of repetition of the offence(s), or of disturbance to
the public order (see Calmanovici v. Romania, no. 42250/02, 93, 1 July
2008; Georgiou v. Greece (dec.), no. 8710/08, 22 March 2011; and the
cases cited therein). Furthermore, whether a period of time spent in pre-trial
detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract. Whether it is
reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed on the
facts of each case and according to its specific features. Continued detention
can be justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a
genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the
presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

15

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

IE

I.R

liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC],
no. 5826/03, 139, 22 May 2012; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.
543/03, 42 and 45, ECHR 2006-X; and Bujac v. Romania, no. 37217/03,
68, 2 November 2010).
73. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was first
ordered not to leave town (see paragraph 9 above) and was only placed in
pre-trial detention two months later, on 30 March 2010 (see paragraph 17
above). His detention was subsequently reassessed roughly every month
until he was finally released pending trial on 18 July 2011 (see paragraph 26
above). Therefore, the applicant spent a total amount of one year, three
months and nineteen days in pre-trial detention.
74. The Court will look into the manner in which the domestic courts
assessed the necessity of maintaining the measure and the grounds they
gave for not changing it into a more lenient one.
75. The Court notes that the domestic courts based their decision to keep
the applicant in detention mainly: (i) on the fear that he would try to tamper
with evidence; and (ii) on the impact of the alleged crimes on the public
order. In doing so, they undertook an examination of the particular
circumstances of the case and gave specific reasons based on the applicants
personal situation (see paragraph 10 above). They also examined on each
occasion the opportunity to apply a more lenient preventive measure (see, in
contrast, Gona v. Romania, no. 38494/04, 57, 1 October 2013, and
paragraphs 21 and 24 above).
76. It is to be noted that the reasons given by the domestic courts
remained the same throughout the proceedings (attempts to tamper with
evidence and impact on the public order). However, the Court considers that
such an occurrence was legitimate, notably given the relatively short period
of time between the two examinations by those courts of the reasons for
extending the applicants detention (see Medinu v. Romania (dec.),
no. 5623/04, 47, 13 November 2012; Georgiou, cited above; and
Blteanu, 69, cited above). Moreover, their reasoning was neither succinct
nor formulaic, and took into account developments in the trial proceedings
(see, in contrast, Begu v. Romania, no. 20448/02, 86, 15 March 2011, and
paragraph 21 above).
77. In the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court
considers that the domestic authorities offered relevant and sufficient
reasons for not changing the preventive measure into a less strict one and
thus for extending the applicants pre-trial detention, which, overall, was not
excessively long.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

16

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

78. The applicant complained that the authorities had leaked excerpts
from the prosecution file to the press in particular, transcripts of telephone
conversations that had been intercepted by the authorities during a
surveillance operation. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which
reads as follows:

I.R

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.

IE

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

1. The parties arguments

IT

A. Admissibility

EA

JU

ST

79. The Government raised a plea of non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies. They argued that there was no evidence that the applicant had
brought the issue of the alleged breach of his right to respect for his private
life before the domestic courts. In their view, he could have lodged a
criminal complaint for abuse of office or disclosure of professional secrets.
Such an action had been used by a co-accused; the mere fact that it had been
unsuccessful in that case did not in itself render the remedy ineffective.
They also argued that an action lodged under the Audiovisual Act (Law
no. 504/2002) or an action lodged under the general tort law, namely
Articles 998 and 999 of the former Civil Code taken in conjunction with
Decree No. 31/1954, would have constituted effective remedies.
80. The applicant contested those arguments.
2. The Courts assessment

LU

81. The Court reiterates that it has recently examined an identical

complaint, raised by C.C., the applicants co-defendant in the domestic
proceedings (see Cuneanu, cited above, 63-97). In that case, it found
that the interested parties had had no effective remedy at their disposal to
complain about the leak of information from the prosecution file to the
media (see Cuneanu, cited above, 72).
82. The Court has no reasons to depart, in the present case, from those
findings. It therefore dismisses the Governments objection.
83. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention, nor
is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

17

B. Merits
1. The parties arguments

I.R

84. The Government averred that any communication to the press during
the criminal proceedings had been in accordance with the applicable
domestic regulations and the Council of Europe recommendations in the
matter, and developed the same line of reasoning as in Cuneanu (cited
above, 77-79). In addition they pointed out that the DNA had drawn the
attention of the media institutions to the risks that they exposed themselves
to when publishing information which was not officially confirmed.
85. The applicant contested those arguments.

IE

2. The Courts assessment

JU

ST

IT

86. The Court reiterates that in the case Cuneanu, cited above, which
raised an identical problem, it concluded that there had been a violation of
Article 8 of the Convention in so far as the respondent State had failed in
their obligation to safeguard the information in their possession in order to
secure the applicants right to respect for his private life, and likewise failed
to offer any means of redress once the breach of his rights occurred (see
Cuneanu, cited above, 97).
87. The Court has no reasons to depart, in the present case, from those
findings.
There has consequently been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
88. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

EA

If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.

LU

A. Damage

89. The applicant claimed:

(a) 375,203 Romanian lei (RON) for pecuniary damage incurred as a
consequence of the alleged violation of Article 5 3 of the Convention;
(b) 4,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
incurred as a consequence of the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 8 of
the Convention (the arrest, conditions of detention and transport, and
publication of information contained in the criminal file); and
(c) EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the
conditions of his detention and transport during his pre-trial detention.

18

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

IE

I.R

90. The Government argued that there was no causal link between the
complaints raised with the Court and the pecuniary losses alleged. They also
considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate the existence of any
non-pecuniary damage and that the amount he had claimed in respect
thereof was excessive. In their view, the acknowledgement of a violation of
the Convention would represent in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
91. The Court reiterates that in the present case it has found a violation
of Articles 3 (conditions of detention) and 8 of the Convention. In this
context, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses

IT

92. The applicant made no claim under this head.

C. Default interest

JU

ST

93. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

EA

1. Declares the complaints raised under Article 3 concerning the conditions

of the applicants pre-trial detention and transport during detention and
that raised under Article 8 concerning the leak to the press of non-public
information admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on

account of the conditions of the applicants pre-trial detention;

LU

3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on

account of the conditions of the applicants transport while in detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with

VOICU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT

19

I.R

Article 44 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five

hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the respondent States
currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate
equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during
the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants claim for just satisfaction.

IE

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2014, pursuant to

Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Josep Casadevall
President

LU

EA

JU

ST

IT

Santiago Quesada
Registrar