5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  According to a police report drawn up on 21 June 2005, the police division responsible for fighting organised crime and drug trafficking (“the police”) received information from an undisclosed source that an individual called “Ursu-Degweed” was a member of a network of dealers that was trafficking drugs in Constanţa. 7.  The police initiated an investigation of their own motion. On 21 June 2005 the prosecutor authorised the use of an undercover police agent, who was to be helped by a police informer, D., to follow a lead regarding the applicant’s alleged criminal activities. At the time of the events, the applicant was a student; D. was an acquaintance of the applicant, studying at the same university. 8.  D. called the applicant and asked him to provide her with some drugs. She informed him that a common friend, L., could help him to find a dealer, set the price for the drugs and sent the money by mail (postal order) on 23 June 2005. 9.  On 25 June 2005 the applicant called D. and set up a meeting at the Constanţa railway station for the same day. The applicant was accompanied by three friends. At about 11.45 p.m., while he was waiting for D. at the railway station, police officers from Constanţa Police, acting in league with the undercover agent and D., approached him. They searched the applicant and found eighteen ecstasy tablets and 0.46 grams of cannabis resin in his possession. 10.  In his first statement to the police, given on 26 June 2005, the applicant disclosed that the dealer who had sold him the drugs was called B. and helped the police to set up an operation to catch him in the act of committing a crime. 11.  The applicant also stated that D. had called and had asked him to buy twenty ecstasy tablets for her. She had sent the money for the drugs by post and had informed him that a common friend, L., could help him to find a dealer. L. had given him the number of a dealer, B., who had sold him seventeen tablets. He had received two tablets as a gift; he had kept one for himself and had given the other one in exchange for the cannabis resin, found in his possession at the search. He intended to spend his holidays in Constanţa with his friends at D.’s invitation. D. had also promised to offer him accommodation. 12.  The applicant maintained his allegations in a statement given in the presence of two lawyers of his choice on 19 July 2005. He added that he had accepted to provide D. with the ecstasy tablets in the hope of having an intimate relationship with her during his stay in Constanţa. 13.  On 25 July 2005 the prosecutor’s office committed the applicant for trial on charges of drug trafficking, in violation of Law no. 143/2000 on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use (hereinafter “Law no. 143” – see paragraph 22 below). 14.   Several hearings were held before the Constanţa County Court. The applicant denied his involvement in drug trafficking and claimed that he had been entrapped by the police. His lawyers insisted on the importance of hearing evidence from D. 15.  On 5 June 2007 the Constanţa County Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to one and a half years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. The court dismissed his allegations that he had been entrapped. It confined itself in noting that the activity of the informer, D., had been lawful, without referring to the question whether she had been authorised to act as an undercover agent. The relevant part of its reasoning read as follows:
“The applicant’s argument that the informer, D., had incited him to commit the offence could not be retained. The court notes the applicant’s recruitment activity in bars in Constanţa, the undercover informer being a simple client among other clients. The activity performed by the undercover informer was in line with Law no. 143/2000.” 16.  The Constanţa County Court did not provide any reasons justifying the fact that, in spite of the applicant’s insistence, D. had not been heard. In convicting the applicant, it relied on his own statements, corroborated by the statements made by the friends who had accompanied him on his trip to Constanţa on 25 June 2005, as well as on reports produced by the undercover agent and the police following the police operation organised on 25 June 2005 when the applicant had been caught in the act of committing a crime. 17.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 5 June 2007. His lawyers reiterated that he had been entrapped by the police and that D. should be heard by the court. They also claimed that D. had not been authorised to be part of the undercover operation. 18.  On 22 October 2008 the Constanţa Court of Appeal noted that D. had never given evidence as a witness before the investigating authorities and that her name had only been mentioned in the reports drafted by them. Accordingly, her previous statements could not be read in open court pursuant to Article 327 § 3 of the CCP (see paragraph 23 below). 19.  On 24 October 2008 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the County Court’s findings. Without providing any additional reasons, the court simply reiterated that the evidence obtained by using an undercover agent was in accordance with Law no. 143. It did not refer at all to the applicant’s argument that D. had not been heard. 20.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his complaints. He claimed that he had been unduly incited by D. to commit the offence of which he had been found guilty and that throughout the proceedings he had not had an opportunity to have her questioned. 21.  In a final decision of 4 March 2009 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. It upheld the reasoning of the two lower courts.