CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 8 February 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7486/12 Vasile Gavril CERNEA against Romania lodged on 3 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vasile Gavril Cernea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Oradea. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date in 2000 the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and another co-accused for bribe taking and for abuse of office against public interest. The Bucharest Agency for Capitalisation of State Assets (“BACSA”) joined the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant as a civil party seeking the recovery of the alleged damage incurred by the State as a result of the applicant’s actions. On 29 November 2000 the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant and his co-accused on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. On 10 January 2001 the hierarchical prosecutor attached to the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 29   November 2000 on its own motion and ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused be re-opened. On 16 August 2002 the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office seized ( instituit sechestrul asigurator ) all the applicant’s movable and immovable assets up to the concurrent coverage of the alleged damage incurred by BACSA, namely 27,863,805,105 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 1,758,753 US dollars (USD)). On 29 August 2002 the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and his co-accused and sent their case to trial. On 13 February 2006 the Bihor County Court examined the applicant’s case on the merits and acquitted him for abuse of office against public interests. However, it convicted him for bribe taking and sentenced him to three years imprisonment, suspended. Moreover, it confiscated ROL   68,008,000 (USD 4,292) from the applicant and ordered him to pay USD 1,758,753 in damages to BACSA. Furthermore, the court maintained the seizure measure imposed on the applicant’s assets on 16 August 2002. The applicant and his co-accused appealed against the judgment. On 19 September 2006 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed on the merits the applicant’s and his co-accused’s appeals, quashed the judgment of 13 February 2006 and referred back the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. On 8 April 2010 the Bihor County Court examined the applicant’s case on the merits and acquitted him for abuse of office against public interests. However, it convicted him for bribe taking and sentenced him to three years imprisonment, suspended. Moreover, it dismissed BACSA’s civil claims lodged against the applicant. Consequently, the court lifted the seizure measure imposed on his assets on 16 August 2002. The applicant, his co ‑ accused and BACSA appealed against the judgment. On 23 November 2010 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the parties and upheld the judgement of the first-instance court. The applicant, his co-accused and BACSA appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. By a final judgment of 4 May 2011 the Court of Cassation allowed in part the applicant’s appeal on points of law and closed the criminal proceedings opened against him for bribe taking on the ground that his criminal liability for the aforementioned offence had become time-barred. The court upheld the remaining parts of the judgments delivered by the lower courts. B.     Relevant domestic law The provision of the former Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure concerning challenges against preventive measures ( contestarea măsurii asiguratorii ), namely Article 168, is described in Rosengren v. Romania (dec.), no. 70786/01, 4 May 2006. Articles 370 and 385 5 of the former Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure provide that the appeal and the appeal on points of law have a suspensive effect in respect of both the criminal and the civil limbs of the proceedings. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings opened against him. 2.     The applicant complains in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he had incurred substantial losses because he was unable to freely dispose of his movable and immovable property for almost nine years following the seizure of his assets during the criminal proceedings opened against him.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stemming from the seizure of his assets for a period exceeding eight years?   Was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant ( Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?