CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 24 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37990/16 Ovidiu Eugen CIOGESCU against Romania lodged on 28 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings opened by the domestic authorities against the applicant. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 19 October 2015 (available to the applicant on 31 December 2015) convicting the applicant of abuse of office and of forging documents and sentencing him to five years and eight months imprisonment. The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because (i) the courts which convicted him both at first and last instance level failed to hear evidence directly from part of the witnesses in the case and (ii) his conviction was grounded on documents seized during a search carried out on part of his company’s premises in the absence of any judicial authorisation for the search and seizure. The applicant also alleged under Article 8 that the search of part of his company’s premises and the seizure of the documents found on those premises without a judicial authorisation delivered by a court breached his rights to private and family life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention in so far as (i) the courts which convicted him both at first and last instance level failed to hear evidence directly from part of the witnesses in the case and (ii) his conviction was grounded on documents seized during a search carried out on part of his company’s premises in the absence of any judicial authorisation for the search and seizure? 2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights to respect for his private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular was the search of part of the applicant’s company’s premises by the authorities and the seizure of the documents found on these premises, in the absence of a judicial authorisation, lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?