5.   The applicant, Mr Bogdan Ioan Bulea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973. 6.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with several crimes. On 24 February 2003 the investigation concluded with the applicant’s indictment for fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing economic crimes. 7.  On 28 August 2003 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was replaced by the Bacău County Court with the preventive measure of a prohibition on leaving town. Claiming that the prohibition on leaving his town of residence had prevented him from obtaining a job, the applicant sought to have the measure overturned. On 25 November 2003 the Bacău County Court allowed the applicant’s application and replaced it with a prohibition on leaving the country. 8.  On 20 April 2004 the Bacău County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing crimes and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 9.  The applicant filed an appeal, which was partially allowed on 22 March 2005 when the Galaţi Court of Appeal decided to send the case back to the Galaţi County Court for retrial on the merits. 10. During the retrial, the applicant sought the revocation of the preventive measure prohibiting him from leaving the country on several occasions, complaining that the unreasonably long travel ban had prevented him from conducting his business activities and earning a living for his family. He also argued that there were no reasons to suspect that he posed a flight risk. On 7 March 2006 the Galaţi County Court rejected the applicant’s application, holding that the severity of the crimes he was accused of, the significant losses to the State treasury which had been caused by those offences and the early phase of the trial justified the need to keep the preventive measure against him in place. The court further stated that the duration of the proceedings and the duration of the preventive measure imposed on him were also due to the complexity of the case, which involved numerous defendants and witnesses.
Similar applications for revocation of the preventive measure filed by the applicant were rejected with the same reasoning by the Galaţi County Court on 3 and 28 April 2006. On 19 September 2006 a new application by the applicant was again rejected by the same court, which found that the measure was still necessary given the significant losses caused to the State treasury, the complexity of the case and the fact that the measure had not been in force for an excessive period of time. 11. On 30 March 2007 a new judgment on the merits was issued by the Galaţi County Court, which found the applicant guilty of aggravated fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing crimes and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant was also obliged to repay to the State treasury the sum of 3,740,901,433 Romanian lei (ROL) which he had received illegally. The court analysed the necessity of the preventive measure prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country and decided to maintain it, considering that it was necessary in view of the severity of the crimes committed by the applicant. 12.  The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of 30 March 2007. During the appeal hearings before the Galaţi Court of Appeal, the applicant once again applied for the removal of the prohibition on leaving the country. At a hearing which took place on 8 October 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s application with the reasoning that, at this stage of the proceedings, given the fact that the applicant had been convicted by the first-instance court but also in view of his numerous attempts to delay the proceedings, keeping the measure in place was warranted. On 18 December 2008 the Galaţi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The preventive measure imposed on the applicant was maintained, the court holding that the reasons for imposing the measure were still valid. 13.  Both the applicant and the prosecutor filed appeals on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 18 December 2008. 14.  By a final judgment of 18 March 2010 the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and associating with several people with the goal of committing crimes and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The obligation to reimburse the sum illegally received from the State treasury was upheld. 15.  On 8 April 2010 the applicant started serving his sentence in Bacău Prison. 16.  In his application form of 17 May 2010 the applicant complained that the atmosphere in the prison cell was terrifying and amounted to psychological pressure. 17.  In his letter of 9 July 2010 the applicant complained before the Court that his prison cell was overcrowded, measuring 24 sq. m and having twenty-seven beds arranged in three-level bunks separated by a space of one metre. The applicant also complained that the cell only had one window of 1 sq. m and was therefore lacking in natural light and ventilation. In addition, he complained that he was being held in the same cell as very dangerous criminals. 18.  According to an order of the prison administration submitted by the applicant, there was no electricity provided in the cells between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m., while between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. electricity was only provided for the security light. 19.  The applicant was detained in Bacău Prison between 8 April 2010 and 15 July 2010. 20.  Between 8 April and 3 May 2010 he was held in the intake area and was detained in cell no. 115, which measured 26.27 sq. m and had fifteen beds installed. The applicant shared the cell with a maximum of seven other detainees. The window measured 1.73 sq. m. 21.  Between 3 May and 7 July 2010 the applicant was detained in cell no. 107, which measured 39.36 sq. m, had twenty-seven beds installed and which he shared with a maximum of seventeen other detainees. The window measured 2.78 sq. m. 22.  Between 7 and 15 July 2010 the applicant was detained in cell no. 506, which measured 32.13 sq. m, had ten beds and which he shared with nine other detainees. The window measured 2.52 sq. m. 23.  In respect of the hygiene conditions in the cells, the Government submitted that the cells each had a bathroom with individual toilets, showers and sinks and windows which provided natural light and allowed ventilation. The cells and the bathrooms were also equipped with an electric ventilation system. 24.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant’s application for temporary release for three months was allowed by the Bacău Court of Appeal and he was released from prison on the same date. 25.  Because the applicant did not return to continue serving his sentence after the expiry of the three-month term, on 19 October 2010 a nationwide search warrant for him was issued. On 4 November 2011 the warrant was extended to the international level by the Bacău County Police. The applicant remains at large.