CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC54DD832 { width:160.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8135/15 Corneliu POPA against Romania and 5 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   May   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case mainly concerns the alleged unlawful composition and lack of impartiality of the trial panel who adopted the final conviction decision in the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicants. 2.     On 26 September 2013 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicants (some of them public officials) and several other people of corruption offences and facilitation of money laundering in the context of the privatisation of a State-owned company. In order to recover the millions of euros of damage caused by the crimes on trial to the State budget, the court ordered the confiscation of certain amounts from the defendants and upheld the seizure ordered by the prosecutor in connection with various amounts of money and property belonging to the defendants. All parties appealed against the judgment. 3.     The proceedings on appeal took place before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. During these proceedings, the court extended the seizure measures so as to cover all the direct proceeds of crime, including the assets belonging to relatives of the defendants or to other third parties. The seizure was imposed also in connection with assets belonging to the applicants in the present case. The court held that, in view of the large amount of the alleged damage, the seizure was necessary to avoid the concealment, destruction or selling of assets which might serve to cover that damage. The measure was based on the provisions of Article 10 of Law no. 78/2000 on the fight against corruption and Article 32 of Law no. 656/2002 on the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism which provided, among others, that seizure was a mandatory measure in proceedings concerning cases of money laundering. 4.     The assets subject to seizure were identified and their owners, including the applicants, were summoned to appear before the Court of Appeal, and were present at hearings and represented by lawyers of their choice. Several complaints raised by the applicants arguing that all the seized property had been acquired lawfully were rejected by the court in reasoned decisions. The court found that all elements required by law for the seizure had been met and all interested parties, including the applicants had had the opportunity to raise their complaints and submit evidence before the court. 5 .     Subsequently, the applicants lodged numerous complaints and petitions for the recusal of the judges sitting on the appeal trial bench arguing that the decisions concerning the seizure had been based on those judges’ bias against them. They also argued that the trial panel had not been randomly assigned. These petitions were rejected by reasoned decisions based on the applicable legal framework (Article 67(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) as there were no subjective or objective reasons put forward capable of raising any suspicions of bias and all legal requirements had been observed in respect of the decisions ordering the seizure and the assignment of the case to the trial panel. The assignment of the case and the composition of the panel to which the case had been assigned had also been examined by the court’s Governing Board ( Colegiul de conducere ) and had been found in compliance with the provisions of the Internal Regulations of Courts as approved by Decision   no.   387/2005 of the Higher Council of the Judiciary ( Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii ), judges having been replaced on leaving their office. 6.     On 8 August 2014 the Bucharest Court of Appeal adopted the final judgment in the case. The court upheld the applicants’ convictions in an extensively reasoned judgment of 225 pages, in which all the evidence – including expert reports, documents and numerous witness statements – was thoroughly examined. In addition, based on the evidence and the arguments raised before it, the court upheld the seizure measures ordered in the case, finding that they were in full compliance with the criminal law and the Constitution. The decision was communicated to the parties on 17   September 2014. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 8.     The applicants alleged that the trial panel which convicted them with final effect had not been composed lawfully because the principle of random distribution of cases had not been respected. The panel had also lacked impartiality in breach of the guarantees set forth by Article   6 §   1. 9.     The Court has previously examined similar complaints and found that the assignment of a case to a particular judge or court fell within the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the domestic authorities in such matters (see Bochan v. Ukraine , no. 7577/02, § 71, 3 May 2007). Bearing in mind that in the present case the judges on the appeal bench, on leaving office, were replaced on the basis of the Internal Regulations of Courts, that the applicants’ complaint in this respect had been examined and rejected in a reasoned decision based on the applicable law, and in the absence of any other elements indicating a lack of impartiality of the new judges on the bench (see paragraph   5 above), there is no appearance of a breach of the guarantees set forth by Article   6 of the Convention (see, Iancu and Others v.   Romania (dec.) [Committee] nos. 17934/15 and 2 others, §§ 24 and 25, 28   September 2021; and mutatis mutandis, Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria , no.   43800/12, §   108, 15   September 2015). 10.     As regards the alleged lack of impartiality, the Court notes that the applicants challenged the panel for bias, arguing that the judges had taken unlawful decisions in the case (see paragraph 5 above). Those challenges had been examined and rejected in reasoned decisions, which were taken in compliance with the provisions of Article 67(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the situation complained of was not listed among the grounds for disqualification of judges in criminal proceedings as provided by law (see Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, no. 60858/15 , §   38, 4   February 2020). 11.     Therefore, the Court considers that there is no appearance of any objective or subjective lack of impartiality on the part of the judges in the appeal panel. 12.     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention . Remaining complaints 13.     The applicants also raised other complaints under Article   6   §§   1-3 and Articles 7, 14 and 18 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. 14.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 15.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 June 2022.     Crina Kaufman   Tim Eicke   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Appendix No Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 8135/15 06/02/2015 Corneliu POPA 1967 Bucharest Romanian   2. 8599/15 07/02/2015 Gheorghe MENCINICOPSCHI 1949 Otopeni Romanian Neculai STAN, lawyer practising in Bucharest 3. 11305/15 02/03/2015 Vlad-Nicolae SĂVULESCU 1960 Bucharest Romanian Corneliu-Liviu POPESCU, lawyer practising in Bucharest 4. 12619/15 09/03/2015 Jean Cătălin SANDU 1971 Bucharest Romanian Anca Andreea POPA 5. 13506/15 09/03/2015 Flavius-Adrian POP 1977 Bucharest Romanian Andreea Elena TUDOR 6. 15430/15 19/03/2015 Gheorghe SIN 1942 Bucharest Romanian Lorand David DEZSI, lawyer practising in Bucharest