4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ploieşti. 5.  The Ploieşti police started an investigation into allegations that the applicant had stolen petroleum products from his employer, an oil company. 6.  On 6 June 2002, the applicant was apprehended by the police.
On 7 June 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova County Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant for thirty days, until 6 July 2002. The prosecutor’s order gave the following reasons for seeking the applicant’s arrest:
“the offence is punishable by more than two years’ detention, and [the applicant’s] continued liberty represents a threat to ordre public.” 7.  On 4 July 2002 the applicant was brought before the County Court in order to have the lawfulness of his committal for trial and of his pre-trial detention verified. The applicant’s lawyer requested that the detention order be set aside and the applicant released, arguing, in particular, that the arrest warrant was unlawful and that the measure of placing the applicant in pre‑trial detention had been taken automatically and too easily, as there was no evidence that he had committed the offence in question. 8.  On 4 July 2002 the Prahova County Court, considering that the reasons justifying the initial measure remained unchanged, ordered the applicant’s detention in custody for thirty more days, namely until 5 August 2002. It noted that its decision was subject to appeal at the same time as the judgment on the merits of the case. 9.  Four more hearings took place before the County Court. Each time the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended for similar reasons to those of 4 July 2002, until the judgment on the merits was delivered. No further grounds were given by the County Court. 10.  On 9 October 2002 the Prahova County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and imposed a one-year suspended sentence. 11.  The applicant was released from custody on 10 October 2002. 12.  The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the County Court’s judgment in a final decision of 7 July 2003. 13.  Meanwhile, on 8 August 2002, the applicant was dismissed from his job in application of the Labour Code, as his detention had exceeded sixty days. He found a new job on 12 December 2004.