CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21437/15 Maricel BARTIC against Romania lodged on 14 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Relying on Article 6 § 1 the applicant raises a complaint in substance under Article 7 of the Convention arguing that the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in its final judgment of 14 October 2014 adopted on his appeal, had increased his sentence with two additional years, in breach of the applicable domestic legal provisions prohibiting reformatio in pejus . QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the increase in the applicant’s sentence imposed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in its judgment of 14 October 2014 prescribed by the law, as envisaged by Article   7 of the Convention (see Greco v. Italy (dec.), no. 70462/13, 24 September 2015)?