CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2023

.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 } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s63C6B839 { width:93.44%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3281263B { height:27.5pt } .s16392215 { width:10.86%; 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 } .sD5CD368B { width:34.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s74E1361C { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FAFF773 { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s65561073 { height:27pt } .s52CBF179 { width:10.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA13A896A { width:34.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2870DFE { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s637B56F5 { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9308/18 Vasile, Tatiana and Vasile PRUTEANU against Romania lodged on 31 January 2018 communicated on 17 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicants’ criminal conviction on the basis of witness statements which the applicants did not have a chance to test. It also concerns the alleged incompatibility of some judges to sit in the applicants’ case. The applicants were accused and convicted for pimping and human trafficking. It was alleged that they ran several massage parlours in which female employees offered sex in exchange for money to male clients. The charge concerning pimping was supported by numerous witness statements, newspaper adds advertising the parlours’ services, intercepted telephone communications between the applicants and clients and sex related objects found on the premises of the massage parlours. In so far as the human trafficking charge was concerned, in finding the applicants guilty of trafficking six persons, the courts relied on the statements of six female employees originating from the Republic of Moldova who had alleged to have been obliged by the applicants to practice prostitution. They alleged that their passports had been seized by the applicants, that they could not have contacts with their families because their telephones had been taken away and that they had been threatened that their families would be informed about their occupation if they refused to continue working for the applicants. While all six Moldovan female employees made identical statements, their statements greatly differed from those of more than ten local female employees who had stated that their Moldovan colleagues had identity papers and telephones on them at all times and had been free to go and come back whenever they wanted. Moreover, they stated that the Moldovan colleagues had never complained of being forced in any way and had been on very good terms with the applicants. In finding the applicants guilty of six counts of human trafficking the domestic courts only heard two of the Moldovan witnesses, while other three were questioned by a Moldovan rogatory commission, and one was only heard by the prosecutors during the investigation phase. The Romanian judges who examined the case did not see those four witnesses and neither did the applicants have an opportunity to examine or to have them examined. The applicants complain that the criminal proceedings against them have been unfair and allege that they have been convicted of human trafficking on the basis of witness statements made to the Moldovan authorities, without being given an opportunity to examine their accusers or to have them examined on their behalf. They also allege that both at first instance and on appeal, the criminal case against them was examined by judges who had previously sat as a judge of rights and freedoms and had ordered their detention on remand. They argue that those judges were in a state of incompatibility in accordance with Article   64 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allege that they lacked impartiality.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 119 and 147, 15   December 2011; and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10 , §§   107, 116 and 118, 15   December 2015)? 2.     Were the tribunals which dealt with the applicants’ case “established by law” and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular, in view of the fact that some of the judges who examined the merits of the case had previously sat as investigation judges in the same case (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no.   26374/18, §§ 231-232; Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 115, 28   November 2002, and Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, ECHR   2005-XIII)?   List of the applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Place of residence 1. Vasile PRUTEANU 1987 Braşov 2. Tatiana PRUTEANU 1965 Săcele 3. Vasile PRUTEANU 1960 Săcele