CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2022

.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 } Published on 11 July 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57555/21 Robert-Mihăiță ROȘU against Romania lodged on 20 November 2021 communicated on 21 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s rights during the criminal investigation and trial against him for conspiracy to commit crime, influence peddling, complicity to money laundering and to abuse of office. The applicant, a lawyer practising in Bucharest, was deprived of his liberty, presented to the public in handcuffs and information from the investigation file, including personal data such as his address and details of his bank accounts, was disclosed to the media by the authorities during the investigation. In order to seek compensation for the above, the applicant lodged a claim for civil damages on the basis of the general tort law provisions set forth by Articles   1357-1358 of the Civil Code and also on the basis of Article   20(2) of the Constitution concerning the prevalence of international treaties and conventions over national law, Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning damages for unlawful deprivation of liberty and Articles 3, 5, 6 and   8 of the Convention. On 21 April 2021, the High Court of Cassation and Justice partially allowed the claim and awarded the applicant the equivalent of approximately 5,000 euros in compensation for the disclosure of his personal data from the investigation file. It considered the applicant’s remaining complaints to be ill-founded or unsubstantiated. On 24 November 2021 the criminal trial against the applicant ended with the High Court of Cassation and Justice acquitting him of all charges. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he had been presented to the public in handcuffs this being an unlawful, unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate measure, that humiliated him and breached his right to dignity and protection of his image and caused damage to his reputation as a lawyer. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty from 11 a.m. on 9 December 2015 to 4:30 p.m. on 10   December 2015 on the basis of a warrant to appear that had not complied with the applicable law because it lacked reasoning and exceeded the time ‑ limit provided by law for this type of measure. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 5 that, in view of the domestic court’s judgment of 21 April 2021, he had not been compensated for this infringement of his rights under Article 5. Relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention the applicant complained of the lack of an effective domestic remedy for his complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of his presentation to the public in handcuffs?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention on account if his presentation to the public in handcuffs?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention during the period between 11 a.m. on 9 December 2015 and 4:30 p.m. on 10 December 2015 ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   4.     In the light of the rejection of his claim under Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the final judgment of 21 April 2021, did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3, 5 §   1 and 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?