CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 21 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38504/18 Ilie PETRESCU against Romania lodged on 31 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of the special proceedings for the assessment, by an administrative body – the National Integrity Agency (NIA) – and subsequently by the courts, of the origin of the applicant’s wealth acquired in his capacity of manager of a public hospital, proceedings based on the provisions of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of public functions and Law no. 144/2007 of the National Integrity Agency. The assessment was finalised with the confiscation of 479.981 euros from the applicant by a decision of the Pitesti Court of Appeal of 22 September 2015, upheld by a final decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 19 February 2018, as the applicant could not prove the lawful origin of his assets. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that he had to bear the burden of proof as regards the lawful origin of his wealth, although by a decision of the Constitutional Court no. 415 of 14 April 2010 this obligation together with other provisions of Law no. 144/2007 had been declared unconstitutional. He considers that the proceedings in his case, finalised with the confiscation of his assets based on the impossibility to justify their lawful origin, were in breach of the principle that property is presumed to have been acquired lawfully, set forth in Article 44 of the Romanian Constitution. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a disproportionate interference with his property rights due to the confiscation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     If so, was that interference lawful and did it strike a fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the requirements of the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis , Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria , no. 12655/09, 3 June 2015)?