5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is detained in Poarta Albă Prison. 6.  On 19 July 2007 the authorities initiated an investigation of their own motion in connection with a network of drug dealers coordinated by C.B.S. 7.  On the same day the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice authorised the police division responsible for combatting organised crime and drug trafficking to use an undercover agent in order to identify members of the network. The justification given for such an operation was that, on the basis of information gathered during a preliminary criminal investigation, there was a strong indication that the applicant belonged to a drug-dealing network which provided drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and hashish to drug users known to him in Craiova. 8.  The authorisation for the operation was extended three times, on 18 August, 17 September and 16 October 2007 respectively. 9.  The interception and recording of the applicant’s phone conversations was also authorised. The meetings between the applicant and the undercover agent were recorded. 10.  On 19 July 2007 the undercover agent approached the applicant, asking to buy cannabis or any other drug from him. According to the report drafted by the agent on the same day, the applicant confirmed that he had a small amount of cannabis and hashish in his possession and offered to sell it to the agent. He sold to the undercover agent on that occasion 1.59 grams of cannabis, 0.23 grams of hashish and a cigarette containing cannabis. 11.  At the undercover agent’s request they met again on 25 July 2007. The undercover agent asked for more drugs. The applicant informed him that he had none, but promised to find a supplier. He subsequently bought two ecstasy pills from C.B.S. and on 27 July 2007 he met the undercover agent and sold him the pills. 12.  After the undercover agent telephoned him again requesting more drugs, the applicant bought three pills of ecstasy from N.F. and handed them over to the undercover agent on 2 August 2007. 13.  On 9 August 2007 the applicant supplied the undercover agent with 0.43 grams of cannabis. 14.  On 17 August 2007 the police officers, acting in league with the undercover agent, caught the applicant red-handed while he was selling 7.54 grams of cannabis to the undercover agent. 15.  The applicant also had in his possession five small packages of cannabis and a small envelope containing hashish. 16.  The applicant was immediately remanded in police custody. His home was searched on the same day and the police officers found 350 grams of cannabis. 17.  The applicant gave a statement in the presence of a lawyer appointed on his behalf. He pleaded guilty to the accusation of drug trafficking. The next day the applicant was questioned again in the presence of a lawyer of his own choosing. He stated that initially he had only been a user (but not a seller) of drugs. In 2003 he had decided to stop using drugs. In 2007 he had encountered some financial difficulties and had accordingly decided to sell cannabis that he had found growing wild on public spaces in Craiova and a village in the city’s neighbourhood. On several occasions he had gathered the cannabis and sold it to different buyers. He also acknowledged selling hashish that he had procured from C.B.S., one of his friends. He had also sold ecstasy pills that he had obtained from N.F., a girl he had met in May 2007 in a holiday resort. She had told him that she had bought ecstasy pills while living in Spain and that before returning home she had sent a parcel containing ecstasy pills to her home address. They had met again several times after the holiday and she had informed him that she could obtain more ecstasy pills from her brother, who was living abroad. 18.  Five co-defendants (who were allegedly members of the same network of drug dealers) were taken into police custody on the same day. Arrest warrants were issued in their names and their pre-trial detention for thirty days was ordered on 18 October 2007 by the Dolj County Court. 19.  On 12 September 2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice issued an indictment naming the applicant and five co-accused, and the case was registered with the Dolj County Court. 20.  On 17 October 2007 the prosecutor in charge decided to join the applicant’s file to another criminal file concerning other offences involving drug-trafficking allegedly committed by one of the applicant’s co‑defendants. In that file another undercover agent and his collaborator were authorised to operate. 21.  The applicant gave evidence again on 5 March 2008 before the Dolj County Court. He partly maintained the statement that he had given earlier, during the criminal investigation. He contended that the cannabis he had gathered from the public space located near Craiova’s stadium had been for his own use and not for selling. He also stated that he had not sold drugs to anyone other than the undercover agent. 22.  On 14 May 2008 the county court heard evidence from the undercover agent, in the presence of the applicant who was assisted by his lawyer. The undercover agent stated that he had been introduced to the applicant by a drug user, who had informed him that the applicant had been trying to find buyers for hashish and cannabis. He also stated that it had been the applicant who had proposed that he obtain a large quantity of ecstasy pills for him. 23.  In his last oral and written submissions the applicant’s lawyer contended that the use of an undercover agent had been illegal. 24.  By a judgment of 5 September 2008 the Dolj County Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking under Article 2 of Law no. 143/2000 and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. When determining his sentence, the court – referring to Articles 74 (a) and (c) and 76 of the Romanian Criminal Code – took into account as mitigating circumstances the applicant’s good behavior before and after committing the crime. 25.  The court based its findings on (i) the statements given by the co‑defendants, the undercover agent and witnesses, (ii) the transcripts of the recorded phone conversations, and (iii) technical and search reports. It held that the applicant’s defence argument – according to which he had acted at the undercover agent’s instigation – was not viable as the undercover agent had not forced the applicant to sell him drugs. He had merely called the applicant several times and asked him to sell him different drugs.
Moreover, the defence argument was contradicted by the statements given by the applicant during the criminal investigation and by C.B.S., one of the co-accused. Accordingly, the court concluded that the use of the undercover agent in the case had been lawful. 26.  The court furthermore noted the extensive criminal activity engaged in by the applicant’s co-defendants, including C.B.S. (who provided most of the drugs that the applicant sold to the undercover agent) and imposed on them prison sentences. It also noted that the investigating authorities had found out that the cannabis sold by the co-accused had been gathered from a park located in Craiova and that it had been cultivated by C.B.S. Moreover, C.B.S. had been caught red-handed with 102 ecstasy pills when taking delivery of a parcel received by post. 27.  The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, that the undercover agent had overstepped the legitimate limits of investigation by influencing him and inciting him to sell drugs. He also contended that he had merely been a drug user and not a drug dealer. 28.  On 19 November 2008 the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and partly set aside the judgment of the first‑instance court. It reduced the applicant’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment, suspended, and placed him on probation. The appeal court upheld the lower court’s reasoning in dismissing the entrapment plea. 29.  The prosecutor’s office and all the accused, including the applicant, lodged appeals on points of law. 30.  The applicant submitted that – as was clear from the transcripts of the recorded phone conversations – all the drug transactions had taken place at the initiative of the undercover agent. He argued that prior to 19 July 2007, when he had been approached by the latter (see paragraph 10 above), he had not been known as a drug dealer. He also claimed that even though he had been under police surveillance between July and November 2007, no buyer other than the undercover agent had been identified. 31.  The High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the prosecutor’s office’s appeal and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the decision of 19 November 2008 (see paragraph 28 above) and upheld the judgment of 5 September 2008 (see paragraph 24 above). The court of last resort addressed all the arguments submitted by the applicant and his lawyer, including the matter of his having been incited by an agent provocateur. It considered the applicant’s plea of entrapment to be unfounded.