6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. 7.  In the night of 9 February 2004 a police patrol surprised an ongoing theft from a store in Râmnicu-Sărat. They drove in the direction of the store and saw a man in front of it. When seeing the police car approaching, the man ran inside, supposedly to warn his accomplices that the police was coming and then ran away. Shortly after, two men came out from the store and fled in different directions. Inside, the police found two big bags with items from the store which proved to have been abandoned by the suspects when they had run away. 8.  The police agents went in pursuit. They saw one of the suspects getting into a white Oltcit car, whose driver started the car and roared off to the small adjacent streets. The police agents could not see the plate numbers or the driver’s face.
A police agent managed to apprehend another one of the suspects. After taking him to the police station, they returned to the premises to search for the white car in the neighbourhood. They found the applicant sitting in his car, a white Olcit, in a parking lot. They noticed that the car’s engine was warm. They arrested the applicant on suspicion of having participated in the theft. 9.  The applicant was interrogated at the police station the same night. He denied any involvement in the theft, saying that he was on his way to Târgu Neamţ from his home in Bucharest, on business.
The other suspect who had been apprehended in the night of the events also denied the participation in the theft. Both he and the applicant denied knowing each other. 10.  The next morning, the police agents searched the rear boot of the applicant’s car. They found different tools which were deemed suitable to be used in breaking and entering. The applicant alleged that he was using them for repairing the car. 11.  The two men were placed in detention pending trial where they remained throughout the proceedings. 12.  On 4 March 2004, based on the evidence gathered on the spot, the technical expert reports and the statements made by the police agents who had participated in the events, the prosecutor committed the applicant and the other suspect to trial for participation in theft. 13.  On 6 April 2004 the Râmnicu‑Sărat District Court convicted the applicant for aiding and abetting in committing aggravated theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 14.  The court based its decision on the evidence produced by the prosecutor as well as on the witness testimony given in open court. It heard evidence from the police agents present at the crime scene and from a member of the neighbourhood watch who in the night of the crime, had seen the applicant’s car with three persons wearing black clothes and hats in front of it. All witnesses were proposed by the prosecution and had previously given statements before the prosecutor during the investigation.
The applicant, who was defended by court-appointed counsel, did not ask for further evidence to be adduced before the court. He denied the commission of any crime and maintained the same position as during the criminal investigations. 15.  The defendants appealed against the District Court’s judgment, claiming their innocence. Their appeal was dismissed by the Buzău County Court 8 June 2004. Their subsequent appeal on points of law was also dismissed in a final decision of 19 July 2004 by the Ploiești Court of Appeal. 16.  On 13 April 2004 while in detention pending trial, the applicant lodged with the Court a complaint about the alleged lack of fairness of the domestic proceedings. He joined to his application copies of the indictment and of the court decisions rendered in his case. 17.  On 2 August 2004, after receiving the general instructions from the Court concerning his application, he wrote a letter to the Râmnicu‑Sărat District Court requesting simple copies (not certified) of certain documents from his criminal file, notably witness testimonies and reports concerning the material evidence gathered by the prosecution and the technical expert reports. He mentioned that they were needed for his application with the Court. 18.  On 16 August 2004 the District Court’s Registry asked him to send proof of payment of a legal tax (taxa judiciară) of 7,000 Romanian lei (ROL) and a legal stamp (timbru judiciar) of ROL 1,500 for each page to be copied. They invoked Law no. 146/1997 on stamp duty (“Law no. 146/1997”). 19.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant sent to the District Court 100 legal stamps of ROL 1,500 each and informed the registrar that he was unable to provide a legal tax. 20.  On 27 September 2004 the registrar returned to the applicant all the legal stamps he had sent and asked him to complete the stamp duties. He also advised the applicant to send a member of his family to the District Court’s Registry in order to obtain copies of the documents requested, because the cost of the photocopying would also be due. 21.  The applicant renewed his request for copies from the criminal file, but on 6 October 2004 the District Court’s Registry reiterated its previous answers. 22.  On 17 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he could not obtain copies of the documents. He also explained that he could not send a member of his family to the District Court’s Registry. 23.  Those documents were made available to the Court by the Government in the annex to their observations sent on 8 December 2005. 24.  The applicant was released from prison on 11 September 2006.