CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF76B6DF5 { width:114.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8C6DA246 { width:16.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s23208280 { width:21.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86CD1742 { width:8.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s21713D45 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94CF84A6 { width:13.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s511722C8 { width:23.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s12283442 { width:16.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5329576 { width:21.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAB3FBCE5 { width:8.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7821266 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF070EDF7 { width:13.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85E160E { width:23.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 27 November 2018   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 46/15 and 744/15 Daniela NĂSTASE against Romania and Adrian NĂSTASE against Romania both lodged on 22 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the criminal proceedings finalised with the applicants’ (a former prime minister of Romania and his wife) conviction for blackmail and corruption offences by the judgment of 6 January 2014 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the recusals lodged by the applicants against judges I.B. and I.M.M. as well as the requests for abstention filed by the same judges were rejected, and having regard to the manner of appointment of the president of the panel which heard the applicants’ appeal on point of law, was this panel an “impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant in application no. 744/15 incited by an undercover agent to commit the offence of blackmail? If so, was he afforded adequate procedural safeguards with respect to his plea of incitement raised before the national courts?   3.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the overturning by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of the applicants’ acquittal without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicants and the witnesses on whose statements they relied, impair the overall fairness of the proceedings?   4. Having regard that the judgment of 6 January 2014 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice was drafted six months after its public delivery, was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?         Application no. First name LAST NAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative 46/15 Daniela NĂSTASE 1955 Romanian Bucharest Corneliu Liviu Popescu 744/15 Adrian NĂSTASE 1950 Romanian Bucharest Corneliu Liviu Popescu