CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 July 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 74061/17 Ileana ROȘU against Romania lodged on 10 October 2017 communicated on 8 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure of various assets – owned jointly by the applicant and her husband – ordered by the prosecutor on 12   February 2016 in the context of an investigation into suspicions of abuse of office and money laundering started against the applicant’s husband. By a final decision of 24   November 2021, the High Court of Cassation and Justice acquitted the applicant’s husband and lifted the seizure measure with respect to all assets. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that the seizure of common property had been unlawful, disproportionate because it concerned assets of a much higher value than the damage sought to be recovered from her husband and applied for an excessively long period. The applicant also complains that she continues to be prevented from disposing of one of the immovable assets concerned by the seizure because it is still registered as seized with the Immovable Property Registration Office, even after notice of the final decision of 24   November 2021 had been given to the relevant authorities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit her above ‑ mentioned arguments to a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, stemming from the seizure of assets she owned jointly with her husband?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant given the alleged disproportionate value of the assets seized compared with the damage to be recovered by the authorities (see Hábenczius v.   Hungary , no. 44473/06, § 34, 21 October 2014), the duration of the period over which the order of seizure has been applied (see Cernea v.   Romania , no.   7486/12, §§ 46-50, 18 December 2018) and its alleged continuation after the final decision of 24 November 2021 as regards one of the assets?​   3.     Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v.   Romania , no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present her cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measures infringing her right of property?