CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 18 December 2013   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36066/12 Ștefania CASANDRA against Romania lodged on 16 May 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mrs Ștefania Casandra, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1971. She is represented before the Court by Ms   N.   T.   Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. At present she is serving her prison sentence in Târgşorul   Nou Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 3 December 2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Târgu ‑ Secuiesc District Court ordered the initiation of a criminal investigation against the applicant on charges of fraud. The investigation took place in the absence of the applicant, who was not found to the address registered in her identity card. The various reports drafted by the police officers in charge with the execution of the orders to bring the applicant before the investigation body stated that an individual was found at the applicant’s last place of residence registered with the authorities (in Bucharest) who stated that he had bought the applicant’s house in 2003 and had no information about her whereabouts. Such reports were issued on 1   September   2007, 17 and 31 March 2008 and 31   December   2008. On 12 July 2010 the prosecutor issued an indictment for fraud. The case was registered with the Târgu ‑ Secuiesc District Court. The first ‑ instance court sent the summons to the hearings at the applicant’s last place of residence. The proceedings before the first-instance court took place in the applicant’s absence. The court assigned a lawyer to represent her. This lawyer did not propose any evidence in her favour. At the last hearing of 30 June 2011 the court-appointed lawyer submitted her final observations. According to the interlocutory judgment drafted at that date, the lawyer noted that as the applicant had sought to escape trial she would allow the court to decide on her guilt and her appropriate punishment. On 14 July 2011 the Târgu ‑ Secuiesc District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant was arrested on 8 August 2011 on the basis of a warrant for the execution of the prison sentence issued on 3   August   2011. The prosecutor’s office and the applicant appealed against the judgment. The applicant submitted that she had been unaware that criminal proceedings had been pending against her as she had not been notified about the accusations against her and had not been summoned in order to be heard by the investigation body and the first-instance court. She further complained about the ineffective and inadequate defence conducted by her court ‑ appointed lawyer. During the appeal proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of her choice. Although present at the hearings, the applicant was not called to give evidence before the appeal court. She was given the opportunity to address the court at the end of the last hearing and declared that she was innocent. By a decision of 27 October 2011 the Brașov Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. The appeal court acknowledged that the applicant had not been officially notified about the charges against her and had not been heard by the investigation body and the first ‑ instance   court but concluded that this situation was caused by the applicant, who deliberately sought to escape trial. No evidence was directly examined in the applicant’s presence. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial has been infringed as he had been convicted by the first ‑ instance   court in absentia and the appeal court dismissed her appeal on points of law without hearing her and examining any evidence in her presence. She claims that she has not been aware about the proceedings against her. 2.     Under the same article of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was not effectively represented by the court-appointed lawyer during the proceedings conducted in her absence. QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicant’s conviction in absentia by the first ‑ instance   court and the dismissal of her appeal on points of law by the last-instance court without hearing her and without a direct hearing of evidence in her presence disclose a breach of Article 6 of the Convention? 2.     Was the applicant defended through effective legal assistance during the proceedings conducted in her absence, as required by Article   6   §   3   (c) of the Convention?