5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  The applicant and several other persons were arrested and investigated in criminal proceedings concerning five international drug-trafficking networks. The proceedings were widely reported in the media as they concerned one of the biggest drug-trafficking cases being investigated by the Romanian authorities at the time. 7.  One of the drug-trafficking networks was headed by V.B., who organised the transportation of heroin from Romania to Western Europe. 8.  The applicant was arrested on 30 May 2003 on the premises of his factory, during a search being conducted there on the basis of information provided by I.P., a person already under investigation for drug trafficking. 9.  A search report was drawn up on the same day. The report stated that I.P. had accompanied the investigation authorities to the applicant’s factory. In the yard they found a trailer which I.P. maintained had been used for the transportation of heroin from Romania to the Netherlands on several occasions. I.P. showed the investigators two special hiding places in the floor of the trailer which were especially designed for hiding drugs. The investigators also noted that the trailer’s registration plate had been modified. 10.  Documents proving a connection between the applicant and the co-accused, members of V.B.’s network, were identified and seized: an employment contract between the applicant’s company and V.B., copies of the identity cards of two other co-accused, and documents recording the receipt by the applicant of large sums of money from V.B. 11.  According to the applicant, during the search he was beaten by police officers in the presence of the investigating prosecutor. He was then taken to the headquarters of the Bucharest Police Inspectorate to be questioned. 12.  The applicant alleges that the prosecutor took his first statements, on 30 May and 3 June 2003, without allowing him to be assisted by his own chosen counsel, and that the counsel assigned to him also represented one of the co-accused, V.A.P., who had made incriminatory statements against him. 13.  On 30 May 2003 the investigating prosecutor drafted a report stating that the applicant had agreed to be assisted by G.S.C., a lawyer appointed by the prosecutor. The applicant and G.S.C. signed that report. He gave a first statement in which he denied any involvement in drug-trafficking or any illegal activities. 14.  On 3 June 2003 the applicant gave another statement, assisted by G.S.C. He stated that he agreed to be assisted by this lawyer but expressed his intent to appoint his own lawyer in the future. He did made no comment on the charges against him, stating that he maintained his previous statement of 30 May 2003. 15.  In a statement given before the prosecutor’s office on 17 September 2003, I.P. named the applicant as an important member of V.B.’s drug-trafficking network. He stated that the applicant was the owner of a fish factory where drugs transported from Turkey were deposited, packed in aluminium foil and transported to western European countries, and that the trucks used for the heroin transportation were parked in the applicant’s yard. I.P. also referred to a person named “Kolea”, who was considered V.B.’s “right-hand man”, who transported the heroin from Constanta to Bucharest. 16.  On 30 May 2003 the prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for a period of five days in the applicant’s name. On 3 June 2003 a new arrest warrant was issued for a period of twenty-five days. 17.  The applicant appeared before a judge for the first time on 19 June 2003, when the Bucharest County Court approved a request by the prosecutor to have his detention extended for another thirty days. 18.  His detention and that of the other accused who had been arrested, was repeatedly extended by the Bucharest County Court. The number of persons concerned varied from twelve to seventeen. The applicant lodged appeals against the interlocutory judgments; all his appeals were dismissed by final decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 19.  The reasons given by the domestic courts to justify the repeated extension of the detention were: the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the alleged crimes; the gravity and nature of the alleged crimes; and the necessity to conduct further procedural acts (extend the investigations to other persons, verify the criminal records of the accused, obtain lists of the telephone calls between the accused, carry out site investigations and so on). 20.  In a decision of 30 June 2004 the Bucharest Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of the measure to extend the detention of the applicant, stating:
“In the case of each of the accused, the legal situation was analysed and the decision to keep them in detention [during the investigation and trial] was grounded in fact and law, given the nature of the crimes committed and the extremely high level of danger posed by this group of traffickers of high-risk drugs.” 21.  On 15 June 2005, taking into account the progress of the judicial investigation, the County Court decided to replace the measure of detention with release under an obligation not to leave the country, to be applied to all the accused. The prosecutor lodged an appeal. During the following days, different national newspapers published articles with such headlines as: “Court frees fourteen heroin traffickers”, “The price of freedom: one million dollars?”, “Torino gang set free by the Bucharest County Court”. These articles reported on the significance of the case, which was the most important case under investigation in Romania, mentioned the name of the judge who had ordered the release, and stated that according to judicial sources the release decision had been taken following a bribe of one million dollars paid by a Turkish mafia family. 22.  On 17 June 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s appeal, holding that the first-instance court had erred in finding that the reasons which had so far justified the pre-trial detention had changed. It considered that the requirement to hold a trial within a reasonable time needed to be considered in the light of the complexity of the case, which involved many accused, and that it was for the first-instance court to speed up the proceedings. 23.  The applicant was held in the lock-up of the Bucharest Police Inspectorate until 16 January 2004 at the latest, by which date it appears from the information in the case-file that he was already detained in Rahova Prison. 24.  The applicant was held in detention until 4 October 2005, when he was released following acquittal by the first-instance court. 25.  On 25 September 2003 the prosecutor issued an indictment in respect of twenty-six accused persons, including the applicant, and the next day the case was registered with the Bucharest County Court. The indictment also indicated that ten of the accused persons had absconded from the investigation. 26.  The judicial investigation before the first-instance court lasted from 26 September 2003 until 4 October 2005, when the first-instance judgment was delivered. 27.  The interlocutory judgments delivered during the hearings of the case indicate adjournments of the hearings due to the following: irregularities in summoning the accused who were absconding, the absence of a Turkish‑language interpreter, the absence of certain of the accused, who had not been escorted to the hearings by the detention authorities, the absence of the lawyers of some of the accused, or the absence of the case file. 28.  On 6 September 2004 the County Court decided to disjoin the case in respect of the co-accused who had absconded, given that the proceedings concerning them were more complex and this was likely to affect the length of the trial. 29.  The County Court took statements from the accused and witnesses from 14 October 2004 onwards. 30.  On 28 October 2004 I.P. gave a new statement in the presence of the applicant, who was assisted by his chosen lawyer. He stated, inter alia, that in the autumn of 2001 he had gone with another co-accused to the applicant’s factory in order to identify the trailer to be used for drug transportation. He had seen the hiding places in the trailer’s floor and had been present when R.F. had modified the trailer’s registration plate. 31.  On 16 December 2004 the applicant gave a statement before the court. He stated that he withdrew the statements given before the prosecutor during the investigation as they had been taken in the absence of a lawyer of his choice and under duress. He denied all the accusations against him. 32.  On 29 September 2005 the judicial investigation was closed and the lawyers of the accused and the accused themselves submitted their arguments on the merits of the case; the delivery of the first-instance judgment was postponed to 4 October 2005. 33.  On the latter date the applicant was acquitted on the grounds that the evidence submitted against him did not lead to the conclusion that he was guilty. It was noted that the statements of I.P. according to which the applicant’s factory had been used as a place for storing drugs and loading them into trucks were not consistent with other statements I.P. had made and were not supported by any evidence in the case file. It was further established that the statements of I.P. concerning the applicant were indirect statements based on alleged discussions between I.P. and the head of one of the drug-trafficking networks, V.B., and that they appeared to be false. The statements of another witness, V.A.P., concerning the applicant were also judged not to be relevant. 34.  On 7 June 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment in respect of the applicant, finding that the statements incriminating him were not corroborated by any other evidence, especially the statements made by V.A.P. 35.  On 14 June 2007 the High Court of Cassation and Justice reversed the judgment in respect of the applicant, changed the legal classification of the facts and convicted him to seven years’ imprisonment. Having reviewed the evidence in the case, the High Court held that the applicant had supported the activities of the gang by providing help with the packing of the drugs which were to be transported, and by storing them on the premises of his factory and then allowing them to be collected by other members of the network. The court found that the first two decisions concerning the applicant ran counter to the available evidence, mainly the statements of V.A.P. and I.P., but also the evidence obtained following the search of the factory. 36.  On 22 September 2008, the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed an extraordinary appeal by the applicant and quashed the final decision of 14 June 2007, in respect of the applicant only, on account of the fact that at the time the applicant had been hospitalised in the Republic of Moldova and had been unable to attend the proceedings. A new hearing date of 3 November 2008 was set for the appeal on points of law in respect of the applicant. At that hearing the applicant, who was again absent, was represented by his chosen lawyer. The lawyer declared that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but could not be present. 37.  By a final decision of 4 December 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, after hearing the submissions of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer, allowed the appeal on points of law, changed the legal classification of the facts concerning the applicant, and convicted him to seven years’ imprisonment. In reaching this conclusion, it had reassessed the evidence adduced in the case and concluded that it indicated that the applicant was guilty. 38.  A new mandate for the execution of the remaining part of the sentence (after deducting the period already spent in detention) was issued on 5 December 2008. The applicant had served his prison sentence until 30 March 2012 when he was released from detention under probation. 39.  On 2 September 2004 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging that he had been ill-treated on 30 May 2003, that the search of his factory had been unlawful, that he had asked to undergo a medical examination but this had been tacitly refused, that he had been forbidden by the prosecutor to have any contact with his family during the investigation, and that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. 40.  On 21 January 2005 the prosecutor attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s complaints, finding that all the applicant’s procedural rights had been respected and that he would have the opportunity to raise again in his defence during the criminal proceedings on the merits any of the complaints raised before the prosecutor. This solution was upheld by the chief prosecutor on 10 March 2005; he also held that the complaint of ill-treatment had been brought two years after the events and that not enough detailed information had been provided to enable the facts to be assessed. The applicant’s complaint against these decisions was dismissed by a first-instance judgment delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 5 December 2005. By a letter of 26 May 2010 the applicant informed the Registry that, for a number of reasons, he had not lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment.