6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, a company which is the applicant in the case Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, and the leader of an extra-parliamentary opposition party. 7.  On 31 May 2006 the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”) initiated criminal proceedings based on an alleged misappropriation of an office building belonging to company X in 2002. 8.  On 22 September 2006 the applicant was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings. In a decision of the same date, it was alleged that, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, he had bought from bank M. the office building, which had earlier been transferred to the bank by company X as payment for a loan which it could not repay. According to the CFECC, the office building was bought by Megadat.com at a price which was lower than the market price of the building at the time.
The CFECC alleged that the offence was committed by the applicant in collusion with his father, who was the president of company X's board of directors at the time. The applicant's father allegedly managed to convince the board to mortgage the building to bank M. and to indicate in the mortgage agreement a value lower than the market value. Later, when company X found itself unable to repay the loan, also allegedly due to the actions of the applicant's father, the latter used his position as president of the board of directors to convince the other members of the board to transfer the building to the bank in lieu of money, thus avoiding a public auction. In such a way, bank M. took possession of the building at a reduced price.
Later, the applicant, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, bought from bank M. the office building at a price below its market value, thus creating a loss of 1,988,130 Moldovan lei (MDL) for company X. 9.  The decision of 22 September 2006 set out the above accusations against the applicant and his father without, however, relying on any evidence. 10.  On 28 September 2006 the applicant was arrested and a request for his detention for ten days was addressed to the Buiucani District Court. The request reiterated all the allegations against the applicant and his father contained in the decision of 22 September 2006 (see paragraph 8 above) and alleged, inter alia, that the applicant could attempt to influence witnesses since between 1999 and 2002 he and his father had threatened E.S., currently a witness in the case against them. 11.  A detention warrant for a period of ten days was issued by the investigating judge M.D. on the same day. The reasons for remanding the applicant in custody were the fact that he was accused of a serious offence, that there was a risk of the co-accused colluding, that there was a risk of the applicant destroying evidence and that there was evidence that he had attempted to influence a witness. 12.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the order arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed an offence. The accusation against him was based on the fact that Megadat.com SRL had bought an office building from a bank at a price set by the bank. All the contracts concerning the matter were valid and nobody had ever challenged them. No other facts which would give rise to a reasonable suspicion had been established. Moreover, not only had the prosecutors failed to prove the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant was involved in the offence, but more fundamentally, they had failed to prove the existence of an offence.
The reasons relied upon by the court for remanding him in custody were formulaic and without factual support. He also argued that he had never attempted to influence any witness and complained that judge M.D. had rejected his request to hear evidence from the witness he had allegedly attempted to influence. Judge M.D. had also refused to give him access to the materials in the file relevant to the remand proceedings. He had not even been given a copy of the transcript of witness E.S.'s statements.
The applicant finally argued that he was unable to meet his lawyers in conditions of confidentiality in the CFECC detention centre because of a glass partition separating them. He argued that the glass partition was an impediment both to confidential communication and to the exchange of documents between him and his lawyers. 13.  On 3 October 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It did not give any assessment of the applicant's arguments about the lack of reasonable suspicion and argued that according to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention it was not obliged to consider all the arguments raised by the applicant. However, it endorsed the reasons given by the Buiucani District Court in favour of remanding the applicant in custody and argued that the applicant and his defence lawyers were not entitled to see the materials of the criminal file but only the materials presented by the prosecutor in support of the request for remand. The court further submitted that a copy of the transcript of the statements made by witness E.S. was attached to the prosecutor's request for remand; however, it did not mention whether the applicant or his defence had been served with it. The court finally dismissed the applicant's complaint that the first-instance court refused to question E.S. and argued that Moldovan domestic law did not provide for the questioning of witnesses during remand proceedings. 14.  On 4 October 2006 a request for the prolongation of the applicant's detention for thirty days was addressed to the Buiucani District Court by Prosecutor L.R. The grounds for the prolongation were similar to those relied upon in the initial request for a detention warrant. 15.  In his written observations, the applicant objected to the prolongation and argued again that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. He also submitted that he had never attempted to influence any witness and that there were no grounds to hold him in detention. He repeatedly asked the witness, whom he was accused of having attempted to influence, to be questioned. 16.  On 6 October 2006 the Buiucani District Court allowed the prosecutor's request for prolongation of the detention on the same grounds as those relied upon in the initial remand proceedings. The court argued that it did not have the right to express an opinion concerning the applicant's guilt and the relevance of the evidence which served as a basis for his indictment. The court also argued that it did not consider it necessary to question E.S. because her written statements had been attached to the prosecutor's request for remand. 17.  The applicant appealed and argued that the prolongation was illegal because the prosecutor's request for prolongation had been lodged out of time. He submitted that, pursuant to Article 186(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor was entitled to request the prolongation at the latest five days before the expiry of the duration of detention. Since the duration of detention would expire on 8 October 2006, the prolongation request should have been lodged at the latest on 3 October 2006. Under Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, non-compliance with the time-limit led to the loss of the prosecutor's right to request prolongation and to the nullity of the request for prolongation. The applicant submitted that he had brought this argument before the first-instance court, but that it had been ignored. Moreover, before the hearing of the first-instance court, the prosecutor and the judge had locked themselves in the judge's office without the presence of the defence and had a private discussion. For that reason the applicant had challenged the judge. His challenge, however, had been dismissed.
The applicant further complained that the first-instance court had not given him access to the materials of the case file relevant to the remand proceedings. He argued that he had been served with the following documents:
- the decision of 22 September 2006 by which he was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings;
- the minutes of his arrest of 28 September 2006;
- the request by the prosecutor to remand him in custody dated 28 September 2006;
- the decision of indictment of the applicant dated 4 October 2006;
- copies of requests to provide the applicant with mineral water and newspapers;
- copies of requests by the applicant to see his lawyer;
- results of the applicant's medical check up;
- four colour photographs of the building of the Court of Appeal.
According to the applicant, those documents did not contain any evidence in support of his detention. The applicant accused the first-instance judge of lying about the fact that he had been served with a copy of witness E.S.'s statements and relied on the discussions between the judge and the prosecutor during the hearing, when the judge had asked the prosecutor where the written statement of witness E.S. was, and the prosecutor had replied: “I do not know, maybe at the Court of Appeal.”
The applicant asked the Court of Appeal to quash the decision of the Buiucani District Court and to order his release. He also asked that witness E.S. be questioned and that he and his defence counsel be given access to the materials of the case file which confirmed the necessity to hold him in detention. He finally requested that the Superior Council of Magistrates be informed about the fact that Judge M.D. from the Buiucani District Court had had a private discussion with the prosecutor before the hearing and had allowed a request which was time-barred. 18.  On 11 October 2006 during the hearing before the Court of Appeal the applicant's lawyers reiterated the request to be given access to the case file and to be allowed to see witness E.S.'s depositions. It appears from an audio recording of the hearing that the applicant's lawyers insisted on being given a copy of E.S.'s depositions, while the prosecutor maintained that they had seen them. The applicant's lawyers requested that the prosecutor produce a receipt proving that they had been given the transcript and asked the prosecutor to give it to them at the hearing. At the lawyers' request, the court took a pause apparently so as to enable the prosecutor to provide them with a copy of E.S.'s depositions; however, after the pause it went straight to pronouncing its decision. The lawyers' request does not appear to have been allowed as the Court of Appeal did not refer to it at all in its judgment. It found that the first-instance court had not committed any breach of procedure. However, given that the applicant had a fixed address, did not have a criminal record and that there was no risk of his hindering the discovery of the truth, the Court of Appeal decided to release him on bail. In reaching that decision the Court of Appeal referred to the principle that an accused should always be tried at liberty and fixed the bail at MDL 2,000,000. The court ordered that the applicant's detention continue until he paid the money. 19.  Since the applicant was unable to pay the amount set for bail he continued to be detained. He presented to the Court a certificate from his employer, stating that between January and September 2006 he had had no income. 20.  He was detained in the CFECC detention centre. According to him, the room for meetings between lawyers and detainees had a glass partition to keep them separated. They had to shout in order to hear each other and could not exchange documents. 21.  On 14 November 2006 the Buiucani District Court examined a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant and ordered his release without bail.