5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Timișoara. 6.  In February 2011 a large-scale criminal investigation was initiated against ninety‑four police and customs officers for corruption‑related offences. 7.  According to the charge, between October 2010 and January 2011 a criminal group was formed at the Moravița and Foeni border checkpoints, which were controlled by the Timiș County Border Police Inspectorate (“the PCTF”). Its members were involved in acts of corruption and the smuggling of cigarettes from Serbia. 8.  The applicant was a customs officer at the Moravița border checkpoint at that time, and was considered to be part of the criminal group by the investigation authority. On 3 February 2011 the National Anti‑Corruption Prosecution Service (“the NAP”) initiated a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of being a member of a criminal group and bribery. On 28 March 2011 prosecutors extended the investigation to take into account the offence of repeated smuggling. 9.  On 7 February 2011 the prosecutor issued orders to appear on behalf of the applicant and the other ninety-three police and customs officers. The orders contained reasons justifying the measure. After referring in extenso to the impugned facts and the nature of the offences allegedly committed, the prosecutor emphasised that it was in the best interests of the investigation to take all the suspects to the NAP headquarters simultaneously. 10.  In the framework of the criminal investigation, on 8 February 2011 police officers from the NAP carried out a search at the applicant’s home. The search started at 6 a.m. and lasted about three hours. The applicant benefitted from the legal assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing during the search. Related searches were carried out at the residences of the other officers under suspicion. 11.  At about 9 a.m. the police officers informed the applicant that on 7 February 2011 the prosecuting authorities had issued an order to appear before the NAP on his behalf. 12.  At 9.15 a.m. he was taken to the headquarters of the Timiș County Police Inspectorate. 13.  At about 2 p.m., he was taken with ninety-three other police and customs officers by bus to the NAP headquarters in Bucharest. He alleged that during the journey he could not get off the bus and could not use his mobile phone or contact his lawyer. 14.  At about 9.20 p.m., after travelling almost 600 km, they arrived at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest. 15.  The applicant alleged that at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest he had been kept in a room under permanent guard and that he could not have any contact with his lawyer. He also claimed that he had neither been allowed to go and purchase food nor offered it; he had only been allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet or for a cigarette. 16.  Multiple investigative activities were carried out that night by a large team of prosecutors. Each suspected officer was informed of the charges against him and invited to give a statement in the presence of a lawyer of his own choosing. 17.  The same lawyer who had assisted the applicant during the search carried out at his residence arrived at the NAP headquarters at about 00.27 a.m. 18.  At 8.15 a.m. on 9 February 2011, after almost eleven hours, the applicant was informed in the presence of his lawyer of the charges against him. He was provided with an eleven-page document containing a record of the facts. 19.  At about 9.33 a.m. the applicant informed the investigators that he refused to give a statement on the grounds that he was very tired after being deprived of sleep for more than thirty hours. 20.  At about 10.55 a.m. he was informed that the prosecutor had decided to remand him in custody for twenty-four hours. 21.  A decision was taken to prosecute the applicant and a request to place him in pre-trial detention was lodged with the competent court. 22.  At about 8 p.m. on 9 February 2011 he was taken to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for an examination of the prosecutor’s request concerning his pre-trial detention. The hearing started at 10.30 p.m. and lasted almost one hour. The court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant for twenty-nine days, from 9 February until 10 March 2011. The reasons adduced by the court to justify the detention were the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the alleged crimes, and their gravity and nature. 23.  The applicant was taken to the Bucharest Police Station detention facility. 24.  An appeal lodged by the applicant against his pre-trial detention was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 14 February 2011. 25.  On 2 March and 4 April 2011 respectively, the Bucharest Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of the charges, the strong suspicion that the offences had been committed and the repeated nature of the offences. It also stressed that the applicant had acted in his capacity as a customs officer when allegedly committing the offences. It concluded that it would not be in the public interest to release the applicant and the other customs and police officers. In assessing the impact on the public the applicant’s release from detention would have, the court stressed that the acts had been allegedly committed by a significant number of perpetrators over a long period of time, were repetitive and that the perpetrators were customs and police officers in charge of the protection of legal order. 26.  On 9 March and 8 April 2011 respectively, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the extension of his detention, upholding the interlocutory judgments of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 27.  On 3 May 2011 the applicant was transferred to the Timișoara Police Station detention facility. 28.  On 6 May 2011 the Timișoara Court of Appeal ordered his release from detention. An appeal lodged by the prosecutor was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 7 May 2011. 29.  The applicant was released on 8 May 2011 after three months in detention. 30.  It appears that the proceedings on the merits are still pending. 31.  The applicant claimed that he had been placed in a cell measuring 16 square metres, which he had shared with seven other detainees. He also complained of improper conditions of hygiene. 32.  According to the applicant, the cell had a squat toilet and a shower, which were not separated from the living area. 33.  The Government provided information about the applicant’s conditions of detention. They submitted that the applicant had been detained in a cell measuring 14.57 square metres, which he had occupied with seven other detainees. They pointed out that each cell had sanitary facilities such as a toilet and a shower, which were separated from the rest of the cell by a curtain.