5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. 6.  At the relevant time, the applicant was working for the Turkish company A., which in January 1999 started a joint venture in the oil industry with the Romanian company P. based in Constanţa. From February 1999 the applicant worked in Constanţa at company P.'s headquarters. 7.  On 19 July 1999 the joint venture ended and, on the basis of a prior agreement between the two companies, A.'s employees based in Constanţa were requested to return all documents belonging to company P. 8.  On 26 July 1999 at 10 a.m. the applicant unsuccessfully tried to take some documents from company P.'s headquarters, following which P.'s management ordered that all company A.'s employees leave the headquarters by the end of that day. 9.  At 4 p.m. the applicant left the premises with documents classified “confidential”, concerning, in particular, human resources strategies, redundancy proposals, maps of company P.'s properties and of the port, and information on the management team and on the company's export deals. At his home in Constanţa he put the documents in envelopes and then handed them to O.M. at the latter's petrol station in Lazu. O.M. gave the envelopes to a Turkish bus driver, who was instructed to take them to Istanbul and to call upon his arrival for further instructions; the phone number was written on the envelopes. 10.  On 25 August 1999 the Romanian border guards at Vama Veche confiscated the documents from the bus driver. 11.  On the evening of 30 August 1999 the applicant was arrested when trying to leave Romania at the Ostrov border checkpoint and taken to the Constanţa Police headquarters. According to the indictment, he was:
“invited to give explanations to the criminal investigation authorities concerning the documents found at Vama Veche checkpoint; it had been already established at that time that he was the person who had facilitated the illegal transportation of the documents belonging to P.”
At 8 a.m. on the next day, he was taken to a prosecutor who issued an arrest warrant and placed him in police custody in the Constanţa Police detention facilities. According to the applicant's statements, he was not allowed to contact anyone between 30 and 31 August. 12.  The applicant was held in the police detention facilities from his arrest until 29 October 1999. 13.  The applicant described the conditions in custody as follows: he was not given food for the first twenty-four hours of his detention in the police headquarters and was not given any written information in Turkish. He was not allowed a pen and paper to write to his family. During the investigations he was not allowed to talk with his family or counsel in private and was prevented from contacting the Turkish Embassy. 14.  According to the information from the Constanţa Police, the cells in the police detention facilities measured 20 sq. m and had three to four beds each. The toilets were situated on the corridor. No concrete information about the applicant's stay was furnished, as, according to the applicable regulations, the relevant documents are only kept by the prison authorities for a five-year term, which has already expired in the applicant's case. 15.  The applicant was transferred to Poarta Albă Prison on 29 October 1999. He remained there until his conditional release on 15 May 2002, with the exception of the period from 24 August 2000 to 16 May 2001 when he was detained in Rahova Prison. 16.  He alleged that in Poarta Albă he had been held in poor conditions. In particular, he claimed that hot water had been very rarely available and the prisoners at times had not had been able to wash themselves for months. The prisoners had to improvise and use electrical appliances to heat water in their cells to enable them to wash. He alleged that he had not received a copy of the internal regulations in Turkish. 17.  The Government produced official records describing the applicant's detention as follows. 18.  For the first twenty-one days of his detention, the applicant was placed in cell no. 19 which was 39.48 sq. m in size. He shared the room with approximately forty-five other persons. 19.  For most of his stay the applicant was placed in the section for foreign prisoners, in cells nos. 1 and 6 which were 15.26 sq. m in size and had six beds each. There were four to six prisoners in a cell at all times. Each cell had its own toilet, separated from the living space by a wall. There was no hot running water; the inmates were scheduled for a weekly bath. The cells and the toilets had windows for airing and natural light. The cells were heated with wood. Electricity and cold water were permanently available. The prisoners were responsible for cleaning the premises.
In 2004 the toilets were renovated and modernised. 20.  During his stay he received four visits from his mother, five from his father, five from his lawyer and three from representatives of the Turkish Consulate. On each visit, the applicant received a parcel of food and cigarettes. His right to receive visits was not restricted during his detention. 21.  The conditions in Rahova Prison were similar to those in Poarta Albă. The applicant was placed in a 19.55 sq. m cell which had ten beds. 22.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant, in the presence of his chosen lawyer, E.B., and an interpreter, was informed of the reasons for his arrest. At that time he could not provide an address where his family could be contacted as all his relatives lived abroad (Turkey and Bulgaria), but he agreed that his counsel could contact the family. From the observations submitted by the applicant, it appears that the chosen counsel E.B. was asked by company A. to defend him.
Throughout the investigations, the applicant was represented by E.B, and another counsel specialised in criminal law, both representatives of his own choosing, and assisted by an authorized interpreter. 23.  At different dates during September 1999, the prosecutor proceeded to hearing testimonies of fourteen witnesses, who worked for company P. and could provide relevant information regarding the documents that the applicant had tried to remove from the headquarters of the company P. and the events of 26 July 1999. 24.  On 19 October 1999, the applicant, in the presence of his counsel and assisted by an interpreter was confronted with two of the witnesses in the case. The minutes of the confrontations indicate that he addressed questions to those witnesses. 25.  On 25 October 1999 the Prosecutor attached to the Constanţa Court of Appeal indicted the applicant for theft of documents (sustragerea de înscrisuri, Article 242 of the Criminal Code) and industrial espionage (Article 19 of Law no. 51/1991 on Romania's national security). 26.  The case was tried by the Constanţa County Court, based on the evidence adduced, in particular, expert reports on the content of the documents taken by the applicant from company P. and witness testimonies. In his defence the applicant claimed that he had not been aware of the content of the documents taken and that he had done nothing but follow orders from his superiors. 27.  The County Court held eight hearings. At each hearing the applicant was represented by counsel and assisted by an interpreter. For the first hearing, which took place on 26 October 1999, the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed by the authorities. That hearing did not bear on the merits of the case, but concerned the extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention. 28.  On 18 November 1999 the County Court allowed the defence counsel's request and postponed the case in order to allow the applicant, in the presence of an interpreter and his lawyer, to familiarise himself with the prosecution file. The applicant personally or through his counsel made no further complaints to the County Court during the proceeding. 29.  On 6 and 20 January 2000 the County Court heard the applicant's testimony and witness evidence. Fourteen witnesses were heard, the same that had testified before the prosecutor and they all maintained their previous statements. The defence counsels participated in the examination of the witnesses and asked questions; they informed the court that they no longer insisted on the summoning of the absent witnesses. They insisted nevertheless that two witnesses, employees of the State Property Fund (FPS) be examined by the court. One of the proposed witnesses testified at the next hearing, held on 3 February 2000. The applicant, through his counsel declared that he did not insist in the summoning of the second proposed witness.
On 24 February the parties presented their case; the applicant was invited to speak again before the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului). On the same date, the applicant submitted written conclusions by which he claimed to be innocent and provided arguments as to why it could not be held his acts constituted a crime. 30.  On 28 February 2000 the court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. According to the Government, a written translation of the first instance judgement was served to the applicant. 31.  The applicant appealed, claiming that he had been wrongfully convicted. On 7 April 2000 the Constanţa Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, based on the evidence existing in the file and on the pleadings before it. It rejected the defence request for a new witness, another employee of FPS, as it considered that the evidence was not relevant to the case. The applicant was represented by counsel of his choosing and assisted by an interpreter. The applicant was invited to speak before the end of the hearing. 32.  The applicant appealed again on points of law, arguing that the acts he had committed were not the crimes he had been accused of.
The Supreme Court of Justice held three hearings in the case; the applicant was represented by counsel of his choosing and assisted by an interpreter. On 22 February 2001 the Supreme Court heard the defence counsel and the prosecutor and invited the applicant to speak before the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului). It postponed the delivery of the final decision until 8 March. 33.  In a final decision of 8 March 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the previous decisions.