CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sD6DE1560 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sE796CEF6 { width:21.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C3DAA0 { width:134.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 1951/19 and 4067/19 Adrian Valeriu RUS against Romania and Mircea RUS against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   October 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, 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 dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the lack of an impartial tribunal to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms   O.F.   Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of the trial panel that adopted the final conviction decision in the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicants. 2.     The applicants have been sent to trial, in a single set of proceedings, for various corruption offences committed in their capacity of mayor and local councillor of a small-town. 3 .     The trial before the first instance court was assigned to Judge I.C.B. who, before the start of the proceedings, requested to withdraw from the case in order to eliminate any suspicion concerning his potential lack of impartiality in solving the case due to his membership in the Electoral Bureau of the town where the applicants were candidates for mayor and local councillor, respectively. This request was rejected by a panel of two judges who considered that no doubts arose as to Judge I.C.B.’s impartiality. It was held that the request was made solely as a precautionary measure, as the sole fact of Judge I.C.B.’s membership in the Electoral Bureau in question was insufficient to cast doubt as to his impartiality in the absence of any other elements. As a result, Judge I.C.B. presided over the trial as single judge in several hearings before his promotion to the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal. 4.     In the hearings presided by Judge I.C.B., various procedural requests by the applicants were approved or rejected, witnesses were heard, information was requested by the court from various authorities and an expert report was ordered. The applicants also requested the court to find that the preventive measure of interdiction to leave the country previously imposed against them by the prosecutor had automatically ceased by law. Judge I.C.B. decided to reject this request as there was no legal provision that provided for the ceasing of the preventive measure in the applicants’ case. The judge explained that such a measure would be considered to have ceased by the effect of the law only when its term had expired or when a decision to close the proceedings or an acquittal had been adopted in the case. 5.     After Judge I.C.B.’s departure, the proceedings were continued by another judge who decided to acquit the applicants in a decision adopted on 3   July 2015. 6.     Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the case was sent to the Târgu   Mureș Court of Appeal where it had been assigned to a panel of two judges including Judge I.C.B. 7 .     The applicants challenged the appeal panel for bias, claiming that Judge I.C.B. had previously participated in the trial before the first instance court and had taken a decision on the preventive measure imposed against them. The request had been rejected by a panel of two judges who, after evaluation of the entire case file, considered that Judge I.C.B. had merely taken a procedural decision, had not made any assessment on the existence of the alleged crimes or on the applicants’ guilt and had acted with professionalism and objectivity throughout the entire proceedings. Therefore, there was no sign of lack of impartiality on his behalf. 8.     On 20 June 2018 the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal, in a two-judge panel which included Judge I.C.B., decided to convict the applicants as charged and gave them suspended sentences of one year and four months, and one year imprisonment, respectively. 9.     The applicants complained before the Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the appeal panel who convicted them with final effect was composed of Judge I.C.B. who lacked impartiality because, during the first instance court proceedings, he personally had requested to withdraw from their case and had made a decision on a preventive measure against them. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 10.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 11.     The general principles on the impartiality of a tribunal are summarised in Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal   ([GC], nos.   55391/13 and   2   others, §§ 144-50, 6 November 2018) and also in Alexandru Marian Iancu v.   Romania (no. 60858/15, §§   57-63, 4   February 2020). The Court had also held that the mere fact that the trial judge had made previous decisions concerning the same offence such as pre-trial decision, including decisions relating to detention, could not be held as in itself justifying fears as to his impartiality; only special circumstances may warrant a different conclusion (see   Hauschildt v. Denmark , 24 May 1989, §   50, Series A no.   154, and   Romero Martin v.   Spain   (dec.), no.   32045/03, 12   June 2006). 12.     In the present case, the Court is not persuaded that there is evidence that Judge I.C.B. displayed personal bias against the applicants in the appeal proceedings, so as to raise doubts regarding his subjective impartiality. Therefore, the case must be examined from the perspective of the objective impartiality test (compare Alexandru   Marian   Iancu , cited above, §   66). 13.     As to the objective test, the Court notes that the applicants had lodged a challenge for bias before the court of appeal, arguing that Judge I.C.B. had lacked impartiality because he had previously participated in the trial before the first instance court and had taken decisions on the preventive measure imposed against them (see paragraph 7 above). This challenge had been examined and rejected in a reasoned decision made in compliance with the provisions of the law. The judges examining the challenge had concluded, after consideration of the two sets of proceedings in question, that there had been no proof to support the idea that Judge I.C.B. had expressed, in the first instance court proceedings, an opinion on the applicants’ guilt (compare Alexandru   Marian   Iancu , cited above, §   70). 14.     On the basis of the case file the Court observes that the procedure in the applicants’ case was carried out in accordance with the law and, indeed, Judge I.C.B. had not made any findings in the first instance proceedings as to the existence of a reasonable suspicion of a crime committed by the applicants or as to their guilt. 15.     As regards the withdrawal request, the Court considers that Judge I.C.B. sought leave to withdraw merely as a precautionary measure (see Alexandru   Marian   Iancu , cited above, §   69; and contrast Rudnichenko v.   Ukraine,   no.   2775/07,   §§ 36 and 117, 11   July 2013, where the judge in question had specifically mentioned in her withdrawal application that she had already expressed her opinion regarding the incident involving the applicant). In addition, the application to withdraw was examined by a panel of two judges who delivered a reasoned decision (contrast Rudnichenko, cited above, §   117), finding that the mere fact that Judge I.C.B. was a member of the Electoral Bureau in the circumscription in which the two applicants were candidates could not in itself raise a reasonable suspicion that his impartiality would be affected (see paragraph 3 above). 16.     In view of the above, the Court considers that there is no indication of any subjective or objective lack of impartiality on the part of Judge I.C.B., who was part in the appeal panel. 17.     It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 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 6 November 2025.     Valentin Nicolescu   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 1951/19 14/12/2018 Adrian Valeriu RUS 1984 Band Romanian Alexandru Ioan CORDOŞ, a lawyer practising in Târgu Mureș 2. 4067/19 19/12/2018 Mircea RUS 1960 Band Romanian Alexandru Ioan CORDOŞ, a lawyer practising in Târgu Mureș