5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant worked as the Head of the Architecture and Planning Department of the Municipal Council of Chişinău, one of the branches of the Chişinău Mayor's Office. Between 24 September 2004 and 23 February 2005 he was held in the remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). On 23 February 2005 he was transferred to the Remand Centre No. 3 of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău (“prison no. 3”, which was subsequently re-named “prison no. 13”). The applicant suffers from “diffuse osteoporosis, discopathy at L3‑L4‑L5‑S1, hernia of the L5-S1 disc, radiculopathy at L5-S1 and sciatic pain”. 8.  On 23 September 2004 the CFECC opened a criminal investigation against the applicant under Article 327(2)(c) of the Criminal Code for abuse of power in connection with the privatisation of a plot of land. On 24 September 2004 he was taken into custody by CFECC officers. 9.  On 27 September 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued an order for his detention pending trial for 30 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the order were as follows:
“The criminal case was opened in accordance with the law, on the basis of Article 327 § 2 of the Criminal Code. [The applicant] is suspected of committing a serious offence punishable under the law by deprivation of liberty for more than two years; the evidence presented to the court was obtained lawfully and the investigating judge was shown relevant evidence that [the applicant] was indeed a danger to society, was liable to reoffend if at large and to destroy evidence, abscond from justice, obstruct the normal progress of the criminal investigation and influence evidence and witnesses”. 10.  The applicant claimed that his lawyer had requested access to certain documents from the criminal file in order to challenge the grounds of his detention pending trial but had been denied access. 11.  In his appeal against his detention pending trial, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that he was ill and required medical treatment in order to prevent a worsening of his state of health and that no evidence had been submitted to the court about the danger of his absconding or influencing witnesses. He submitted that he had a family and permanent residence in Chişinău, a job and no previous convictions. On 1 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Buiucani District Court of 22 November 2004. The court gave similar reasons for detaining the applicant pending trial, adding that his state of health was not incompatible with detention. 12.  On 8 October 2004 the prosecution initiated a new criminal investigation in respect of the applicant under Article 327 of the Criminal Code for abuse of power in connection with the granting of a construction permit to a private company in breach of a municipal decision. The two cases against the applicant were joined on 3 January 2005. 13.  The applicant requested replacement of his detention pending trial with house arrest. On 19 October 2004 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court rejected that request. Recalling general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding preventive measures, including detention and house arrest, he found that the applicant and his lawyer had not requested that the detention order be rescinded and replaced with alternative measures. The judge went on to find that his detention pending trial continued to be necessary because:
“... the circumstances which formed the basis for detention remain valid; [the applicant] is liable to obstruct the normal progress of the criminal investigation and the establishment of the truth, to influence witnesses and abscond from justice.”
On 24 October 2004 the case file was submitted to the trial court. 14.  On 26 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found that on 24 October 2004 the 30 days of detention pending trial ordered by the lower court had expired and that it was primarily for the trial court to examine any matters concerning the applicant's detention pending trial. The lawyer's request for access to certain elements of the case file against the applicant was allegedly again refused. 15.  On 1 November 2004 the applicant requested that the charges against him be dropped as unfounded and that the order for his detention pending trial be rescinded or replaced by a personal guarantee from three well-known citizens. 16.  On 2 November 2004 the Centru District Court rejected these requests as unfounded. It found that the grounds for detention remained valid and that there was no reason to believe that the applicant could not be given medical assistance in the remand centre of the CFECC. The applicant appealed twice but the appeals were not examined, the courts finding that no appeal lay against such decisions in the course of preliminary proceedings. 17.  On 15 November 2005 the court ordered the replacement of the applicant's detention with house arrest.
 2.  Alleged interference with communication between the applicant and his lawyer 18.  The applicant's lawyer asked for permission to hold confidential meetings with his client. They were offered a room where they were separated by a glass partition and allegedly had to shout to hear each other. It appears from the video recording submitted by the Government that in the lawyer-client meeting room of the CFECC detention centre, the space for detainees is separated from the rest of the room by a door and a window. The window appears to be made of two plates of glass. Both plates have small holes pierced with a drill. Moreover, there is a dense green net made either of thin wire or plastic between the glass plates, covering the pierced area of the window. There appears to be no space for passing documents between the lawyer and his or her client. 19.  Having refused to meet under such conditions on several occasions, the applicant requested the Buiucani District Court to oblige the authorities in the CFECC remand centre to allow confidential meetings. On 13 October 2004 the court rejected that request as unfounded, finding that no rights of the applicant had been violated and that the meeting had taken place “in the conditions of the remand centre of the CFECC and in conformity with Article 187 of the Criminal Procedure Code”. 20.  On 1 November 2004 his lawyer again requested the court to oblige the remand centre authorities to allow confidential meetings with his client. On 2 November the Centru District Court granted this request. 21.  On 4 November 2004 the applicant's lawyer presented that decision to the CFECC authorities and asked for a separate room in order to meet with his client in confidence. However, they had to meet in the same office separated by a glass partition. 22.  On 16 November 2004 the applicant's lawyer again requested the Centru District Court to oblige the CFECC authorities to allow confidential meetings with his client. On 19 November 2004 he informed the Prosecutor General of his and his client's inability to meet on five separate occasions between September and November 2004 because of the lack of confidentiality, and of the applicant's hunger strike in protest against this situation, a strike which he had ended only when the court had granted his request for confidential meetings on 2 November 2004. He referred to a strike by the Moldovan Bar Association in April-May 2003 in protest at the lack of confidentiality of meetings with clients. Moreover, the prosecutor in charge of his case supported his request for confidential meetings. 23.  On 23 November 2004 the Centru District Court found that its decision of 2 November 2004 had not been enforced and ordered the Head of the CFECC to pay a fine to the State. 24.  On 26 November 2004 the applicant's lawyer again requested the Centru District Court to oblige the CFECC authorities to allow confidential meetings. In its decision of 3 December 2004 the court cited a letter from the remand centre authorities declaring that no recording devices had been installed in the meeting room. The court also found that the glass partition did not prevent confidential discussion and that it was necessary to protect the applicant's health and safety and prevent “any destructive action aimed at impeding determination of the truth”. The court ordered the CFECC to allow confidential meetings in the same meeting room as before. It did not set aside its decision of 2 November 2004. 25.  According to the applicant, in early February 2005 he held discussions with his lawyer in the meeting room about certain documents relevant to his case and told him the whereabouts of those documents. When the lawyer went to pick up the relevant documents, CFECC officers were already at the address. During the same period, he was allegedly asked by the CFECC authorities to refrain from using impolite words about them, words which he had used in a discussion with his lawyer in the meeting room. The Government have not commented on these allegations. 26.  According to the applicant, he had not been given any medical assistance while he was detained in the CFECC remand centre, in the absence of any medical personnel there. He complained in several of his habeas corpus requests of the possible worsening of his state of health as a result of his detention. Moreover, the medical assistance given in Prison no. 3 had been inadequate and he had had to rely on medication sent to him by his wife. 27.  The applicant's doctor had recommended that he receive osteopathic treatment once every three months and during flare-ups in pain, that he avoid cold and damp and be given balneotherapy every six months. 28.  According to the applicant, the cell in which he had been detained between 23 February 2005 and 15 November 2005 in prison no. 3 provided an area of 10m2 for four detainees. Since more than half that surface was occupied by bunk beds, a table, a sink and a toilet, the free space left amounted to 4.78m2 or 1.19m2 per detainee. The cell had very limited access to daylight since the window was covered with three layers of metal netting. It was not properly heated or ventilated. The applicant and other detainees had to bring their own clothing and bed linen and to repair and furnish the cell. Moreover, the State allocated approximately EUR 0.28 per day for purchasing food for each detainee (representing 35-40% of the sum required for food, as estimated by the authorities), and the food was inedible. Water and electricity were only provided on a schedule and were unavailable for certain periods, including during the entire night. Detainees had to refrain from using the toilet during such periods in order to limit the smell. On bath day there was virtually no running water in the cell throughout the day. The toilet was situated right across the table and smelt bad. Finally, the area for daily walks was situated just under the exhaust opening of the ventilation system in the part of the remand centre where detainees with tuberculosis were treated, creating a real danger of infection. The Government have not commented on this latter allegation. 29.  According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant's detention were appropriate, as shown on a videotape of the cell and other parts of the prison. The cell was in a good hygienic state and was properly furnished, ventilated and heated and was designed to accommodate persons whose previous functions exposed them to the threat of violence from other detainees. One hour daily walk and a weekly visit to the shower facility were allowed. Moreover, the applicant had been visited regularly by various doctors from a prison hospital and received all the necessary assistance. Finally, the Government submitted medical evidence demonstrating that the doctor's recommendation regarding osteopathic treatment had not been followed during the year prior to the applicant's arrest.