5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest. At the time of the events in question, he was a traffic police officer. 6.  On 17 January 2003 the applicant and his colleague stopped M.D. in traffic and checked his papers. They observed that M.D. did not have an appropriate driving licence for the type of vehicle he was driving, which constituted a criminal offence. They confiscated the car registration papers and M.D.’s driving licence. 7.  On 20 January 2003 M.D. and R.J. (a passenger in the car when the applicant stopped M.D.) informed the prosecutor that the applicant had asked them to pay 10,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) in order that he not pursue a criminal investigation against M.D. On the same date, the prosecutor obtained the authorisation of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office under Articles 911 and 914 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to intercept the applicant’s conversations. He also marked the bills that M.D. and R.J. brought to pay the bribe. 8.  R.J. called the applicant to set up a meeting. Later that day R.J. and M.D. met the applicant in his office (shared with five other colleagues and with S.D., his superior). Only the applicant and S.D. were present at that time. Both the telephone call and the conversation in the applicant’s office were recorded.
After R.J. and M.D. left, the prosecutor arrived and searched the applicant’s office. He found the money for the bribe which had been previously marked. The applicant denied having taken money from R.J. and M.D. or having committed any crime. 9.  At the end of the search, the prosecutor arrested the applicant on a charge of having taken a bribe in order to favourably influence a criminal investigation. The prosecutor started criminal proceedings against the applicant that day. 10.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention for thirty days by order of the prosecutor. The decision was confirmed by the Bucharest County Court by an interlocutory judgment of 11 February 2003. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the county court at regular intervals (on 20 March 2003, 10 April 2003, 8 May 2003, 9 September 2003 and 7 October 2003) until 21 November 2003, when he was released pursuant to the decision on the merits rendered by the court of first-instance (see paragraph 18 below).
The applicant contested each court order concerning his pre‑trial detention and opposed any request by the prosecutor to have this detention extended, but his appeals were dismissed by the court of appeal. The courts heard the arguments presented by the parties and took account of the evidence gathered by the prosecution. On these grounds, they considered that there were strong indications that the applicant had committed the crime he had been accused of and that given the nature of that crime, its gravity and its impact on public order, as well as the fact that the applicant had been a police officer and had been accused of having committed a crime in connection with his status, his continued detention was justified. As the examination of the merits of the case unfolded, the courts considered that the fact that newly adduced evidence might have cast doubt on the manner in which the alleged crime had been committed did not alter the gravity of the crime itself, or its impact on society (final decision of 3 April 2003 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, deciding on an appeal against the interlocutory judgment of 20 March 2003). 11.  On 29 January 2003 the applicant was acquainted with the contents of the prosecution file (prezentarea materialului de urmărire penală). 12.  On 3 February 2003 the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial. 13.  Before the County Court, the applicant denied having taken any money. The court heard testimony from him and from witnesses called by both the prosecution and the defence (hearings of 11 March and 10 April). Despite efforts being made by the court, R.J. could not be found and brought before the court to give testimony.
The applicant contested the lawfulness of the recordings made by the prosecutor and asked that the prosecutor’s office produce the authorisation for interception and the original tapes (at the hearings of 10 April and 8 May 2003). He argued that, as R.J. had reported “the police officers” to the prosecutor, it was important to hear evidence from her in order to clarify whether she had meant the applicant in particular or somebody else from his office. He also pointed out that the transcripts disclosed that the money had not been found where R.J. had supposedly left it. 14.  On 25 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office informed the court that the tapes and their transcripts had been annexed to the indictment and therefore stored in a specially designated place at the court’s registry. On 5 June 2003 the prosecutor further explained that the authorisation issued in the case was a classified document and therefore could not be produced before the court. 15.  In a judgment of 18 June 2003 the Bucharest County Court examined the evidence in the file, including the transcripts of the recorded conversations, found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a four‑year suspended prison sentence.
However, on 9 September 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal declared the judgment null and void, as one of the judges had omitted to sign it, and sent the case back to the Bucharest County Court. It maintained the applicant’s detention. 16.  The County Court did not consider it necessary to hear the evidence adduced in the first set of proceedings again. The applicant maintained his initial position and contested the lawfulness of the interception authorised by the prosecutor on 20 January 2003. Through his defence lawyers, he reiterated his request that the authorisation be produced and the tapes be listened to in open court. He pointed out that the voices on the recordings were indistinguishable from each other and that in the transcripts of the recorded conversations both his words and those uttered by S.D. had been marked with the letter “Y”, which rendered it impossible to determine whether it had been him or S.D. requesting or accepting the bribe. He also contended that there had been no explicit reference to any sum of money in the transcripts and that neither M.D. nor R.J. had named him in their initial statements to the police, but rather had talked about “the police officers”. 17.  On 18 November 2003 R.J. gave testimony before the court. She declared that it had not been the applicant but S.D. who had asked for money from her and had instructed her where to put it, and that the applicant had not been in the office when she had taken the money out of her pocket and put it on the table.
At the same hearing, the court noted that the parties had made no further requests to lead evidence. 18.  On 20 November 2003 the County Court convicted the applicant of taking a bribe and gave him a four-year suspended prison sentence.
The court established the facts based on witness testimony given in both sets of proceedings before it (notably from M.D., R.J., the third occupant of the car at the time of the police check, the applicant’s partner at that time and S.D.) and the transcripts of the conversations among the applicant, M.D. and R.J. It found that the applicant had invited M.D. and R.J. to his office, talked with them for a while, and had then asked M.D. to step out of the office while he continued the discussion with R.J. R.J. had told the applicant that she had the money and the applicant had answered “approved”. She had then asked the applicant if they could talk in the office and when the applicant had answered yes, she had taken out the money. The applicant had told her to put the money on a table next to his desk. S.D. had occasionally joined in the discussion but was apparently absent from the office when R.J. left the money. When the prosecutor had entered the applicant’s office, the money had been found under a tablecloth on the applicant’s desk.
The court gave no explanation of its assessment of the new statements made by R.J. or the allegations that the transcripts were inaccurate. 19.  Both parties appealed. The applicant maintained his innocence. Through his lawyers, he reiterated that, despite his repeated requests, the prosecutor had failed to disclose to the court the authorisation for interception and he again contested the lawfulness of the recordings, for the same reasons as argued before the first-instance court. He also requested that a new witness be heard, but on 3 March 2004 the court dismissed his request, as it considered that the evidence already adduced was sufficient. 20.  By a decision of 11 March 2004 the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to serve his sentence. It upheld the remainder of the County Court’s decision. The court considered that the facts as established by the first-instance court and the sentence handed down by that court had been supported by the evidence in the file, notably: statements given by R.J., M.D. and another person that had been in the car at the time of the traffic offence; the report made by the prosecutor when arresting the applicant; and the transcripts of the recorded conversations. The court considered that the new statements made by R.J. were not corroborated by the remaining evidence, notably the transcripts of the conversations and M.D.’s statements. It also considered that, as S.D. had been absent from the office when R.J. had handed over the money (which had been verified through the transcripts), it was irrelevant to the establishment of the facts that both police agents had been marked as “Y” in the transcripts. Lastly, the court pointed out that the report drafted by the prosecutor concerning the interceptions, together with the tapes of the recordings, had been added to the file, as required by law. 21.  The applicant appealed on points of law. He reiterated that the recording of the conversations had been unlawful and that the tapes had not been authentic and should not have been admitted as evidence. He also averred that in none of the statements given by M.D. and R.J had he been designated as the officer who had received the bribe; they had referred only to “the police officers”. 22.  By a final decision of 15 June 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the former Supreme Court of Justice) again suspended the applicant’s sentence. The High Court did not answer the applicant’s arguments as to the alleged unlawfulness of the recordings.