CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s6DEEDC6B { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#333333 } .s3E98D6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200% } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA0993303 { width:139.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PĂCURAR v. ROMANIA (Application no. 17985/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Adversarial proceedings • Alleged unfairness of assets confiscation proceedings against public servant • Applicant represented by a lawyer of his choice, receiving thoroughly reasoned replies to all his allegations and requests to administrative authorities and courts • Burden of proof applied for explaining the income source in compliance with the Constitution and High Court’s case-law • Absence of arbitrariness Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Proportionate non-conviction-based confiscation of unexplained assets from high-ranking police chief on the basis of sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal framework on integrity in public office • Wide margin of appreciation in country-specific context of fighting corruption • Applicant’s financial situation duly examined by domestic courts in adversarial proceedings • Sufficient safeguards • Fair balance between competing interests   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 24 June 2025   FINAL   24/09/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Păcurar v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Faris Vehabović,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   17985/18) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr   Ioan Păcurar (“the applicant”), on 10 April 2018; the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the right of property, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 3 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the confiscation of assets belonging to the applicant – a high-ranking police chief – which were deemed by a court in civil proceedings to be unexplained, on the basis of the legal framework on integrity in the exercise of public office. The applicant considers that these proceedings were unfair (Article 6 of the Convention) and that the confiscation of his assets violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. He was represented by Mr R.L. Chiriţă, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs O. F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5 .     The concept of the confiscation of unexplained assets existed in Romania as far back as 1968, when Law no. 18 on the control of the source of private property not acquired in a licit manner was enacted during the communist regime. In accordance with this Law, the assets of any private person could be verified if there was information or suspicions indicating that a clear disproportion existed between the value of someone’s assets and his or her lawful income. Confiscation was to be applied if the licit acquisition of the assets in question could not be explained. The Law mentioned that the source of a person’s assets was to be explained by proving that the assets in question had been acquired in a licit manner, more specifically, through work or legal acts concluded in accordance with the law ( acte juridice legale ). 6 .     After the fall of the communist regime, Law no. 115/1996 on the declaration of assets and the verification of assets of dignitaries (elected or appointed high-level public officials), members of the judiciary, people holding management positions and public servants (“Law no. 115/1996”) was enacted with the aim of cleaning up the public sector following the transition from communism and increasing faith in the governing authorities (see paragraph   74 below). The scope of application of this new Law was restricted to some categories of public officials and it officially repealed Law   no.   18/1968, which applied to the entire population (see paragraph   5 above). 7 .     In December 2006, in the process of Romania’s accession to the European Union, the European Commission adopted a decision which set up the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (“the CVM”) as a transitional measure to facilitate progress in the fields of judicial reform and anti ‑ corruption (see paragraph 102 below).   By the same decision, a set of criteria (benchmarks) for assessing such progress was also established. Those   benchmarks dealt with the effectiveness and transparency of the judicial system, key institutions in areas like integrity and the fight against corruption at all levels. More specifically, benchmark no. 2 was worded as follows: “Establish, as foreseen, an integrity agency with responsibilities for verifying assets, incompatibilities and potential conflicts of interest, and for issuing mandatory decisions on the basis of which dissuasive sanctions can be taken”. Against this background, in 2007 the Law establishing the National Integrity Agency ( Agenția Națională de Integritate, “the ANI”) was enacted (see paragraph 77 below). The CVM was formally closed by the European Commission on 15   September 2023 after all benchmarks were considered to have been implemented by Romania and the functioning of the ANI was found to be efficient (see paragraph 106 below). PROCEDURE FOR VERIFYING THE APPLICANT’S ASSETS First step of procedure: The ANI 8 .     On 28 December 2011 the ANI noted that the applicant had not complied with legal provisions concerning the filling in of declarations of assets. As a result, on the basis of Article 12 §§ 1 and 2 of Law   no.   176/2010 on integrity in public office (see paragraph 81 below), it started proceedings to verify his assets. It appears from the file that the applicant, in his declarations of assets, had not mentioned any income other than his salary and had been inconsistent in listing various immovable properties which he had acquired. 9 .     On 25 January 2012 the applicant was informed by registered mail of the start of the proceedings, as provided for by Article 13 of Law   no.   176/2010 (see paragraph 81 below). Bearing in mind that the applicant had occupied a position in the county police inspectorate since 1985, he was informed that the verification concerned the period from 1996, when the obligation to fill in declarations of assets had been introduced following the entry into force of Law no. 115/1996 (see paragraph 6 above and paragraph 74 below), until the present. 10.     The ANI inspector in charge of the case collected information from the applicant’s employer, from other authorities and from banks where the applicant had accounts, pursuant to Article 15 § 1 of Law no. 176/2010 (see paragraph   81 below). 11 .     The applicant, upon being invited to do so by the inspector in charge of his case, went to the ANI offices and acquainted himself with the content of the entire verification file. He then submitted by post information on changes in his civil status and clarifications about expenses he had incurred as a result of the baptism of his son from his previous marriage. 12 .     On 31 August and 4 September 2012 the applicant was informed by registered mail and by phone respectively that significant differences (exceeding 10,000 euros (EUR)) between his income and expenses had been found in respect of the period during which he had held public office (see paragraph   14 below), and he was invited to submit his point of view and any relevant information. The applicant was also informed that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer. 13 .     The applicant, once again at the ANI offices, submitted a document concerning additional income he had gained in allowances in relation to his salary. He also alleged that the differences between his income and assets were due to financial gifts he had received at his wedding in 2005 totalling EUR   93,000, money belonging to his wife totalling EUR 79,000, and a yearly income ranging from EUR 8,000 to EUR 16,000 from his family’s agricultural activities. Without giving any reasons, the applicant confirmed that he had failed to mention these amounts in his declarations of assets. 14 .     On   24 September 2012 the ANI concluded the verification with a report, in which it was explained that significant differences between the applicant’s income and expenses had been found in relation to 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2008 to 2010, totalling 718,847.54 Romanian lei (ROL – approximately EUR 189,143). For example, the report mentioned that the applicant’s annual salary had varied from approximately EUR 3,700 in 2001 to EUR 7,900 in 2004, and before 2001 his annual salary had been lower than EUR   3,000. However, in 2003 the applicant had acquired a plot of land and a house with 45,000 United States dollars (USD) and had started construction works on another house valued at approximately EUR 65,000, which had been finalised in 2004. In addition, in 2004 he had bought an apartment with EUR   18,000. The case was sent to the Commission for the Verification of Assets attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal, in view of the opening of verification proceedings under Article 18 of Law no.   176/2010 (see paragraph   81 below). The amounts allegedly received as gifts and those belonging to the applicant’s wife had not been taken into account in the report, because it was considered that no proof had been submitted in support of the allegations. Second step of procedure: Commission for the Verification of Assets attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal 15 .     The proceedings before the Commission for the Verification of Assets attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal (“the Commission”) started in October 2012. The Commission was composed of two judges who were vice   presidents of the Cluj Court of Appeal and one prosecutor. The proceedings were held in camera, in the presence of only the parties as provided by Article 10 2 § 1 of Law no. 115/1996 (see paragraph 74 below). 16 .     A hearing was set for 7 November 2012. The applicant was present and represented by a lawyer of his choice. Statements were given before the Commission by the ANI inspector who had drafted the verification report (see paragraph   14 above), the applicant and his wife. The applicant explained that he had gained significant amounts of money from farming and from gifts from his father, and he had kept these amounts in his home and had failed to declare them in his declarations of assets. He further stated that some of the money used to buy the various immovable properties he owned had belonged to his wife. Other significant amounts had been received as gifts at his wedding and on the occasion of his children’s baptisms. The applicant’s wife stated that her contribution to the family assets had been approximately EUR   91,000 plus EUR 8,600 that she had obtained from selling her car, a Volkswagen Golf, to a person whose name she could not remember. No written proof of the transaction could be submitted. 17.     In support of his claims, the applicant submitted copies of statements given by his parents and his wife’s parents, sale contracts for two immovable properties, the declarations of assets he had submitted between 2005 and 2008, a letter from the local authorities mentioning that his father owned a farm as a family business, and an accounting expert report calculating the applicant’s income and the value of his properties. 18.     The Commission summoned the applicant’s former wife, his son from his previous marriage, and another person who was alleged to have acquired goods from the applicant to appear before it. 19 .     At a hearing on 21 November 2012 the Commission heard statements from the applicant’s son from his previous marriage, who explained that he had purchased a car from the applicant for EUR 11,000 and two other cars from the applicant’s wife for a total price of EUR 34,400. He further stated that he had received a house from the applicant in 2004. He had rented out the house and the rent had been deposited in a bank account opened in the applicant’s name. The applicant’s former wife and the other witness stated that they had purchased various assets from the applicant. No documents were submitted in support of these statements. 20 .     At the same hearing the Commission asked for the parties’ opinion on the necessity of an accounting expert report. The applicant did not oppose this, and so the Commission ordered one expert appointed by the court and one expert proposed by the applicant to prepare an accounting report. The parties were allowed to submit questions for the experts, and they made use of that right. The applicant asked the experts to calculate his income and expenses from 1996 onwards. 21 .     The applicant added to the case file a copy of a report issued by the tax authorities on 17 December 2012. After verifying the applicant’s tax obligations in connection with the income acquired from rent between 2005 and 2008 and the sale of an immovable property in 2005, the authorities did not find any breaches of his tax obligations. 22 .     The accounting expert report added to the case file on 26   February 2013 listed changes in the applicant’s assets between 1996 and 24   September 2012, his income and that of his family, their expenses for utilities for the same period, and a calculation of the differences between income and expenses for each year. It concluded that expenses had not exceeded income. 23.     The parties were given time to submit their comments on the report and a new hearing was set for 13 March 2013. 24.     At the hearing on 13 March 2013 the representative for the ANI submitted that the expert report had taken into consideration income whose source had not been proved and which had been mentioned only in the applicant’s statements, not in documents. For example, the assertions about the gifts from the applicant’s father and the alleged income from agricultural activities had not been supported by any documents. In addition, there was no material proof of the amounts allegedly received as wedding gifts, and they had not even been mentioned in the applicant’s declaration of assets for the respective year, therefore they had been wrongly included as income in the report. Similarly, the fact that several cars had been sold by the applicant or his current wife to his minor son from his previous marriage had wrongly been considered evidence of income in the absence of written proof. 25 .     The applicant’s representative considered that the expert report was accurate and asked the court to dismiss the report prepared by the ANI as unlawful (see paragraph 14 above). She alleged that several legal provisions had been breached in the proceedings before the ANI. More specifically, no accounting expert report had been prepared as required by Article   16 of Law   no.   176/2010 and no detailed explanations had been requested from the applicant, who had not had the opportunity to present all relevant documents in his defence, in breach of Articles 14 and 15 of the same Law (see paragraph   81 below). The ANI inspector had incorrectly calculated the difference between income and expenses for each year instead of distributing the differences over the entire period. In addition, several assets had been overlooked. She further submitted that the applicant had provided sufficient proof as to the source of his income. On the contrary, the ANI’s findings in the contested report had not been proved. She therefore asked the Commission to order that the case be closed pursuant to Article 10 4 § 1 (b) of Law   no.   115/1996 (see paragraph 74 below). 26 .     The Commission postponed the delivery of its decision in order to give the parties the opportunity to submit written arguments. 27 .     On 25 March 2013 the Commission found that the acquisition in 2004 of two immovable properties had not been entirely explained, since the income accumulated by the applicant and his family from 1996 until 2004, as indicated by the evidence adduced, did not cover the total expenses incurred in 2004. The difference between income proved to have been accumulated up until 2004 and expenses incurred in 2004 amounted to ROL   261,310 (approximately EUR 59,000) and was considered a significant difference within the meaning of Article 18 of Law no. 176/2010 (see paragraph   81 below). The Commission held that the fact that between 2007 and 2012 expenses had not exceeded income could not be taken into consideration and explain the difference in the preceding period. More specifically, expenses incurred in 2004 could not be explained by income gained subsequently. On the issue of the burden of proof, the Commission considered that the ANI had an obligation to prove the findings made in its report, while the applicant had the right to provide any evidence he deemed necessary in order to prove his allegations. Therefore, the burden of proof was shared between the two parties. The Commission found that the ANI had not proved the existence of the whole significant difference mentioned in its report, and the applicant had also not proved all his allegations. From the evidence submitted by the parties, the Commission found that only the amount of ROL   261,310 (approximately EUR 59,000) could be considered a significant difference that had not been explained. Consequently, the Commission decided to notify ( să   sesizeze ) the Cluj Court of Appeal under Article   10 4   §   1   (a) of Law   no.   115/1996 (see paragraph 74 below) so that a decision could be taken on confiscation of the amount in question. Proceedings before the Cluj Court of Appeal 28 .     Proceedings before the division of the Cluj Court of Appeal which dealt with administrative and tax disputes started on 27 May 2013. The ANI and a representative of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal were also party to the proceedings. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice. 29 .     The applicant submitted written observations in which he explained that the report prepared by the ANI (see paragraph 14 above) had been incorrect, as the calculation of his income and expenses had been done by year and not for the entire period; where income had exceeded expenses in one particular year, this should have been taken into account in relation to subsequent years. He also complained of incorrect calculations and mistakes in the report. As regards the proceedings before the Commission (see paragraphs   15-27 above), the applicant criticised the finding that the source of some of the income had not been proved. On this point, he explained that it had been fully proved that he had received income from his father’s farming activities as the letter from the local authorities certified that his father had been registered as an agricultural producer from 1992 to 2005. The applicant also submitted documents that, in his opinion, fully proved that money had belonged to his wife: copies of invoices showing various construction projects on joint immovable property, his declaration of assets for 2003, and a witness statement. The applicant asked the court to hear several witnesses, in order to prove the source of the above-mentioned amounts and other income whose source had been considered unproved, such as the wedding and baptism gifts. 30 .     On 3 October 2012 the applicant asked the court not to allow access to the file to people other than the parties and for the proceedings to be held in secret in order to protect his right to respect for his private life, in the light of interest shown by the media. He stated that some of the documents in the file were not public, such as those related to the proceedings before the Commission. Other documents in the file contained personal data that should not be accessible to the public. 31 .     At a hearing on 7 October 2013 the court allowed the above application as formulated by the applicant and ordered that the proceedings should continue in camera. The court also informed the applicant that the documents concerning the proceedings before the Commission had been separated from the case file at the start of the court proceedings and were not accessible to the public. After hearing arguments from all parties, the court allowed all the witnesses proposed by the applicant (see paragraph   29 in   fine above), including those who were up to third-degree relatives and whose objectivity had been contested by the representative of the ANI. 32.     At the next hearings on 28 October and 18 November 2013 eight witnesses were heard on behalf of the applicant. They stated that they had heard discussions or been told by the applicant or his wife that the applicant’s wife and father had given him certain amounts of money. One witness stated that on one occasion he had heard the applicant’s wife saying that she would give the applicant EUR 5,000 and on another occasion she had said that she would give him EUR 10,000, and once he had been present when the applicant and his wife had received money from the applicant’s father. One witness stated that he had been told by the applicant’s mother-in-law that she would give the applicant and his wife EUR 100,000. Another witness testified that he had been present when approximately EUR 90,000 in money received as gifts at the applicant’s wedding had been counted out, and also when approximately EUR 96,000 in money received as gifts at the baptism of the applicant’s child had been counted out. The remaining two witnesses testified to the extent of the applicant’s father’s agricultural and farming activities, such as the estimated number of animals and the area of agricultural land owned, as well as the estimated market price of certain farming and agricultural products. 33 .     The court also allowed additional requests for evidence from the applicant (for additional witnesses) and from the ANI (a request for information from the local authorities about income from agricultural activities declared by the applicant’s father). 34 .     On 9 December 2013 the court heard other witnesses requested by the applicant, including the applicant’s father and brother, who described their activities at the family farm and the money they had given to the applicant in 2004: an approximate total amount of EUR 78,000. 35 .     On the same date the applicant submitted observations on the accounting expert report (see paragraph 22 above), asking the court to order the recalculation of certain income and expenses for the years 2003 and 2004. 36.     In a letter dated 23 January 2014, in reply to the court’s enquiry (see paragraph 33 above), the tax authorities stated that the applicant’s father had not declared any income for the period between 2004 and 2006; for 2007 and 2008 he had declared expenses exceeding his income, and for subsequent years until that date he had declared an annual income ranging from EUR   500 to EUR   1,400. 37.     At the hearing on 17 February 2014 a new witness was heard by the court. He stated that he had bought a property from the family of the applicant’s wife and had paid EUR 110,000 or EUR 120,000. He stated that when he had paid the price the applicant and the person who had facilitated the transaction had counted the money. No written proof of this transaction had been submitted. 38 .     At the same hearing the court allowed a new request for evidence from the applicant, who wanted clarifications to the expert report (see paragraph   35 above) and for his wife to be heard as a witness. 39 .     On 28 April 2014 a new accounting expert report was added to the case file; it had been reviewed in the light of the applicant’s request (see paragraph   38 above) and the statements that the witnesses had given before the court in the meantime. Taking into account the amounts allegedly received by the applicant as indicated by the statements given by the witnesses, the new report found again that there was no difference between the applicant’s income and his expenses for the reviewed period, and this time the income taken into consideration had been higher than in the last report. A new hearing was scheduled for 19 May 2014 so that the parties could have time to study the new report and submit their comments. 40 .     At the hearing on 19 May 2014 the court heard submissions on the merits of the case from the applicant and the prosecutor. The ANI’s representative was not present. The applicant’s representative submitted oral and written arguments reiterating the previous allegations (see paragraph   29 above). She further contended that the applicant could not be expected to have written evidence of all the amounts of money he had received, as some situations could not be proved by documents, such as the gifts received from his father, the wedding and baptism gifts, and his wife’s financial contributions to the purchase of various assets. The evidence of the witnesses who had testified before the court should be considered sufficient in that regard. 41.     The representative of the prosecutor’s office considered that the witnesses had lacked credibility, as they had remembered with extreme accuracy specific amounts and events that had taken place many years earlier, and asked the court not to take their statements into account. 42.     The court postponed the delivery of the judgment so that the parties could submit further written arguments. 43 .     In its written arguments,   the ANI contested the findings in the new expert report (see paragraph 39 above) and claimed that the calculations made in its report (see paragraph 14 above) were based on documents gathered from various authorities, and that those documents could not be disproved by witness statements that were not corroborated by any written proof. Moreover, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, legal transactions with a value higher than ROL 250 (approximately EUR 60) could not be proved by witness testimony. 44.     The applicant submitted further written comments in which he replied to the arguments raised by the prosecutor and the ANI, claiming that all the witness statements were accurate and true. In a separate document, he submitted his reply to the ANI’s comments on the new expert report (see paragraph   39 above), reiterating his previous arguments in connection with the source of income that the ANI had wrongly considered not proved (see paragraph   40 above). 45 .     The court heard new submissions on the merits on 16 June 2014, at the request of the ANI’s representative, who could not be present at the hearing on 19 May 2014 (see paragraph 40 above). The parties had the opportunity to put forward their comments and arguments in reply to each other’s written submissions, including the objections to the new expert report raised by the ANI (see paragraph 43 above). In the light of the discussions between the parties on the findings in the new expert report (see paragraph   39 above), the court decided to send the parties’ objections and comments to the experts for their reply, and allowed an application by the applicant for the appointment of a new expert nominated by him. 46 .     On 13 October 2014 the experts submitted their reply to the above ‑ mentioned objections. They explained that the new report (see paragraph   39 above) had taken into account the amounts mentioned by the witnesses before the court, but only the court could decide what probative value to give these statements. On 3 November 2014 the new expert instructed by the applicant also delivered her reply. She agreed with her colleagues on most of the points and made a correction as regards the income calculated for 2005 and 2008, considering that the correct amounts were those included in the initial report prepared by the ANI (see paragraph 14 above) and not the ones calculated by the experts for the proceedings before the court. 47 .     At a hearing on 24 November 2014 the applicant and the ANI submitted written comments on the three experts’ replies (see paragraph   46 above). 48 .     On the same date the court allowed an application submitted by the ANI for a new expert report prepared by three different experts whose names were to be selected by the court from a list of available court experts. The applicant submitted additional clarifications in writing for the new experts’ attention. The court set the next hearing date for 19 January 2015 to allow time for the new expert report to be prepared. 49.     Between 19 January and 11 May 2015 several hearings were adjourned owing to various procedural issues in relation to the preparation of the expert report. 50 .     At two hearings which took place between June and October 2015 the parties discussed the accounting report submitted by the new experts. The report took into account all the income alleged by the applicant and mentioned by the witnesses before the court, and found no significant differences between the applicant’s income and expenses for the verified period. The report was cosigned by an additional expert on behalf of the applicant and another one on behalf of the ANI. 51 .     The comments submitted by the parties as regards this expert report were sent to the experts, who, in turn, submitted their reply. The applicant’s comments mainly concerned the method of calculating the value of an immovable property and a failure to include additional income for the year 2006. The court approved an application by the applicant to testify before the court and for a new witness to be heard. 52.     On 5 October 2015 the applicant and the witness he had proposed – the owner of the restaurant where the applicant’s wedding party had been held in 2005 – testified as to the expenses incurred in relation to the applicant’s wedding. 53 .     At the same hearing, the court ordered the experts who had prepared the latest report (see paragraph 50 above) to reply to additional questions raised by the parties and by the court. The applicant submitted additional documents (relating to his purchase of an apartment from his current wife and her daughter in 2004, before their marriage, and the sale of that apartment in 2005) and written arguments to support his claim that his family’s lawful income had consistently been higher than their expenses. 54.     At a hearing on 16 November 2015 the experts submitted their reply, in which they explained their calculation method and, as requested by the court, provided a fresh calculation of the applicant’s income and expenses. Taking into consideration the statements given by the witnesses before the court, the experts found that in 2003 and 2004 expenses had exceeded income by EUR 696 and EUR 2,815 respectively. 55.     At the same hearing the court decided that it was necessary to hear the applicant, his wife and another witness, and set a new date for a hearing. The court also sent the applicant’s submissions (see paragraph 53 above) to the experts for their comments. 56 .     On 16 December 2015 the applicant testified about the source of the amounts received from his former wife and his current wife, and about the expenses incurred in relation to the construction of one of his houses. The applicant’s current wife stated that she had contributed money to the construction of the above-mentioned house, money which she had received from her parents and from the sale of the apartment in 2004 (see paragraph   53 above). No written proof was submitted in connection with the money she had allegedly received from her parents. The applicant’s father was also reheard and stated that he had not kept any accounts for his farming activities and did not have any documents to support his statements about his income and the money he had given the applicant. Another witness, a former work colleague of the applicant, stated that he had heard discussions about the applicant receiving money from his current wife and from his father. 57.     On 25 January and 8 February 2016 the applicant filed additional written submissions and documents, reiterating his previous arguments and clarifying certain factual aspects of the witness statements. He asked the court to conclude that his assets had been obtained in a licit manner. 58 .     After hearing the parties’ closing arguments, the court delivered its judgment on 8 February 2016. 59 .     It firstly set out the applicable legal framework – Law   no.   115/1996 (see paragraph 74 below) and the new Code of Civil Procedure that had entered into force on 15   February 2013. It then confirmed the period to be taken into account for the verification (1996-2012 – see paragraph 9 above) and set out the limits of its jurisdiction in relation to the Commission’s notification, more specifically, verification of the lawful source of the amount of ROL 261,310 (approximately EUR 58,500 – see paragraph 27 above). The court also set out the limits of its jurisdiction by noting that the Commission had found that the amount in dispute was the unexplained difference between the applicant’s income and expenses for the year 2004. It therefore considered that any arguments about income received after that year were not relevant to its verification in the case. 60 .     The court then went on to examine and reply extensively (on eighteen pages) to each argument raised by the applicant. An additional income of ROL   6,386 (approximately EUR 1,400) claimed by the applicant was added by the court to the explained income for 2004. The court considered that this amount was explained income because it had been proved by evidence (a payment order issued by the tax authorities in the applicant’s name, for the regularisation of income tax). 61 .     However, other allegations made by the applicant were dismissed by the court. Firstly, it was considered that no proof had been provided as regards the claims that the applicant had received various amounts of money from his father. On this point, several pages of the court’s judgment examined the contradictions between the various statements and the absence of any written proof of either the father’s income and farming activities (such as tax declarations, invoices, accounting documents) or the applicant having received these amounts. Secondly, as regards certain expenses incurred in 2003, the court also found contradictions between the various statements made by the applicant and the witnesses, and that there was no written proof such as invoices to show that the construction expenses relating to the house (see paragraph 56 above) had been paid by the applicant’s wife or that these expenses had been as high as the applicant had claimed. As regards the amounts given to the applicant by his wife, the court found inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements before the ANI and before the court as regards the moment when he had received them and the exact amounts he had received. Moreover, the court found that no proof of the source of those amounts had been provided, bearing in mind that the applicant’s wife did not have the necessary financial means. The court concluded that the findings in the accounting expert report were to be taken into consideration only where they concerned proven facts, therefore it considered that the Commission had correctly identified a difference between income and expenses for the year 2004. The remaining difference after the deduction of ROL 6,386 (explained income, as found by the court, see paragraph 60 above) was ROL   254,924 (approximately EUR 57,000). 62 .     The court concluded that under Article 44 § 8 of the Constitution (see paragraph   72 below), property was presumed to have been acquired in a licit manner. However, this presumption ceased to exist when there was definite evidence ( dovezi certe ) that some assets belonging to the people referred to in Laws nos. 115/1996 and 176/2010 had not been acquired in a licit manner (see paragraphs   98-101 below, where domestic court practice as regards the presumption of the licit acquisition of property is summarised). For public servants, the legal framework in which the presumption of the licit acquisition of property ceased to apply was set by Law no. 115/1996 (see paragraph   74 below), and was closely linked to the obligation to declare their assets. In view of the above, the court considered that there was definite evidence that the source of the ROL 254,924 (approximately EUR 57,000) had not been explained by the applicant, and ordered confiscation of that amount pursuant to Article 18 § 1 of Law no. 115/1996. Appeal before the High Court of Cassation and Justice 63 .     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the above judgment with the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”). The proceedings were conducted before the division of the High Court dealing with administrative and tax disputes. 64 .     In his written submissions to the High Court, the applicant reiterated his arguments in connection with the amounts received from his father and his wife. He considered that income received between 2001 and 2004 should also have been taken into consideration when calculating the difference between income and expenses for subsequent years. He submitted a statement from his wife, who claimed that she had received EUR 40,000 from her former husband and knew that the applicant had received certain amounts from his father; a letter from his employer attesting to his income for the period 2005-2013; a copy of a contract attesting to his father’s sale of a car for 14,500 Deutschmarks (DEM); and authorisation confirming that the applicant could sign that contract and receive the money paid for the car in 2001. 65 .     As regards the income allegedly received from his father, the applicant further contended that failing to pay taxes on a certain income (such as the income his father had incurred from farming) did not mean that the income in question had not existed or had been obtained in an illicit manner. By refusing to take such income into account, the Cluj Court of Appeal had breached the presumption of the licit acquisition of property instituted by Article   44 § 8 of the Constitution (see paragraph 72 below). In his opinion, it is for the person alleging the illicit nature of a certain income to prove his or her allegations. 66 .     The applicant also pointed out that the verification should have been restricted to the period during which he had held the position of chief of a county police inspectorate, starting with the year 2005. The verification of his assets before the year 2005 should render the ANI’s report unlawful. Moreover, in the proceedings before the ANI, he had been under the impression that only the declarations of assets which he had made while he had been chief of a county police inspectorate had been verified, therefore he had not adduced evidence relating to his income before that time. Hence, he requested that the period before 2005 be excluded from the verification. He asked the court to re-examine the merits of the case, re-evaluate the evidence and reject the Commission’s notification. 67 .     During the hearing before the court the applicant also complained that throughout the proceedings he had not had the benefit of the presumption of the licit acquisition of property provided for by Article   8   §   3 of Law   no.   176/2010 (see paragraph 81 below). 68.     The ANI submitted its comments on the applicant’s above-mentioned submissions. The applicant and his wife submitted additional written comments in reply, reiterating the arguments summarised in paragraph   64 above. 69 .     On 1 March 2017 the High Court decided to confirm the findings of the lower court and reject the applicant’s appeal. After reviewing the applicant’s arguments and the evidence submitted by the parties throughout the entire proceedings (starting with the ANI’s verification and ending with the Cluj Court of Appeal), the High Court held that the difference between the applicant’s income and expenses in 2004 – identified firstly by the Commission and then corrected by the Cluj Court of Appeal – had not been explained and that the confiscation of that amount was in accordance with the law. 70 .     As regards the argument about the alleged breach of the presumption set out in Article 8 § 3 of Law no. 176/2010, raised by the applicant at the first hearing of his appeal on points of law (see paragraph 67 above), the High Court noted that the applicant had failed to raise it before the Cluj Court of Appeal during the examination of the merits of the case. Nevertheless, the High Court examined that argument as raised by the applicant in his written submissions, in connection with the evaluation of the evidence submitted to prove the income allegedly received from his father (see paragraph 65 above). The High Court explained how the evidence provided by the applicant to prove the source of the amounts allegedly received from his father had been assessed throughout the proceedings. The finding that the source of these amounts had not been proved had been based not only on the absence of a declaration of the farming income for tax purposes, but also on the weight and credibility of the witness statements and the absence of any written evidence of the farming activities or the income which the applicant’s father had gained from such activities. That assessment had been in compliance with the ap