6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. 7.  During the period with which the application is concerned, Ms Duca was the manager of a private company. In 1998 two employees of the company applied to the Chişinău District Court for a declaration of their status as founders of the company. In 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision, dismissed their application. 8.  In 1999 the plaintiffs in the above proceedings lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on charges of large-scale theft and forgery of public documents. On 11 August 1999 the Chişinău District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the above charges. 9.  On 1 November 2002 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 12 December 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partially quashed the judgment of the first instance court. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 18 February 2003, acquitting the applicant. 10.  During the proceedings the applicant was detained twice: first, on remand, between 21 December 2001 and 24 April 2002 and secondly, after being convicted, between 1 November 2002 and 12 December 2002. 11.  According to the applicant, during her first detention the prison authorities interfered constantly with her correspondence with her lawyers. 12.  Following her acquittal, the applicant introduced a civil action against the Government in accordance with Law No. 1545 (see the “Relevant Domestic Law”), claiming compensation of 461,800 euros (EUR) for the illegal acts of the investigation organs, the prosecution and the courts. 13.  On 1 September 2004 the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her a lump sum of 150,000 Moldovan lei (the equivalent of EUR 10,289 at the time). It stated inter alia that:
“On 11 August 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant....
...
[account of the proceedings]
...
On 18 February 2003 the Court of Appeal acquitted her on the ground that no criminal offence was ever committed. Thus, the applicant was illegally charged on four occasions. She was under an obligation not to leave the city, being thus limited in her freedom of movement for 778 days. She was illegally detained in prison for 169 days and 7 hours, of which 111 days were spent in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
It is obvious that while being charged illegally with a criminal offence, the applicant and her family endured mental suffering.
Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer declared that she was detained in inhuman conditions in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was confirmed by the CPT report of 2001.
There is no doubt that these circumstances intensified her moral suffering.” 14.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the judgment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the interference by the prison authorities with her right to respect for her correspondence with her lawyers.